The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Wellfield Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

116 Oldham Road, Rochdale, Lancashire, OL11 1AD (01706) 397600

Provided and run by:
Wellfield Health Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wellfield Health Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Wellfield Health Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

18 May 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Wellfield Health Centre on 18 May 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

3 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wellfield Health Centre on  3 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed however documentation relating to staff immunisation status was incomplete.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it difficult to make an appointment because of the telephone system but there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. A new telephone system had been chosen and was to be installed in October.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice loaned equipment to patients such as blood pressure monitors and glucometers.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The area where the provider should make improvements:

  • Check the immunisation status for staff or carry out a risk assessment.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our inspection of 3 December 2013 found that the resuscitation trolley contained medical equipment that was past its expiry date. There was no recruitment policy in place and appropriate pre-employment checks had not been carried out.

During this inspection we found that the provider had addressed all the areas of non-compliance identified. All equipment was found to be within its expiry date. A recruitment policy had been put in place and relevant staff checks had been carried out.

3 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with the practice manager, a doctor, a practice nurse, two receptionists and a healthcare assistant. We also spoke with five patients.

Patients told us they were treated respectfully by their doctor and all the staff were approachable. They said that the doctors discussed their options with them and they had a choice about any treatment required.

'On the day' appointments were available and patients could book routine appointments up to three weeks in advance. Some early morning, late evening and weekend appointments were available.

We saw that all areas of the practice were visibly clean. Protective clothing such as disposable gloves were available and liquid hand wash, alcohol hand gel and paper towels were available in all consultation rooms.

Regular checks on the quality of service provided were carried out.

Not all the required checks were carried out for staff prior to them starting work.

Most of the sterile equipment for use in a medical emergency was past its expiry date. One sterile wound pack had an expiry date of October 2006. Other equipment was visibly dirty and not appropriately stored.