Cranford Medical Centre

We carried out an announced inspection at Cranford Medical Centre on 27 April 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Requires improvement

Effective - Requires improvement

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 11 June 2017, the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cranford Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection to follow up on:

• Specific concerns based on enquiries received by CQC

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

• Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
• Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
• Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
• Requesting evidence from the provider
• A short site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

• what we found when we inspected
• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Requires improvement overall

We found that:

• The practice had effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse.
• The practice learnt from and monitored events where things went wrong.
• Our searches found some patients prescribed high risk medicines that were overdue monitoring and/or review.
• Recruitment was well managed and organised.
• The practice demonstrated effective care for the needs of it’s population, in particular use of multi-disciplinary teams to provide holistic services and health promotion to patients.
• Rates of cervical and bowel cancer screening and childhood immunisations were below the expected level. The practice demonstrated taking initiative to improve rates including health promotion, auditing and regular meetings, however the impact of these measures had not yet been seen.
• Some patients with long term conditions had not had appropriate monitoring and/or review in a timely manner.
• Some patients were found to have potential missed diagnosis of diabetes.
• The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
• There were adequate policies and processes in place to maintain patient safety.
• Staff demonstrated good knowledge of managing major incidents.
• The practice utilised digital technology to streamline workload and improve patient care.
• The practice actively sought and listened to patient feedback in order to improve.

We found one breach of regulation, the provider must:

• Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

The provider should:

• Continue work to improve screening rates for cervical and bowel cancers, and uptake of childhood immunisations.
• Build on processes to appropriately monitor and manage patients who have long term conditions.
• Continue adequate monitoring and risk assessment of emergency medicine stock.
• Continue two-cycle audits to monitor quality of care.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care