This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection February 2016 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Lower Broughton Medical Practice 3 on 5 April 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• The clinical waste storage room should be securely locked.
• The practice should continue to monitor and make improvements to low scoring areas of QOF.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Lower Broughton Medical Centre 3 on 12 February 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.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had 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.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice had recently been subject to a severe flooding which resulted in the complete loss of the computer systems and also the power to the building. The practice effectively managed the situation and remained committed in order to resume to a full service as quickly as possible and to minimise the impact to patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Review the system for documenting infection control audits.
• Complete a risk assessment for the use of blind cords in the practice.
• Review the Quality and Outcomes Framework scores for the practice and implement changes for improvement.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

As part of our inspection we spoke with both General Practitioners (GP), the practice manager, two patients who used the service and two members of staff. We also spent time looking at patient records and various policies and procedures.

On the day of our inspection we spent some time in the patient waiting area where we observed staff speaking with patients either face to face or over the telephone in a discreet and respectful manner. There was a range of information available to patients which explained their treatment options or offered advice.

The practice was located in a large building on one floor and catered for disabled access and included various consultation, treatment and interview rooms. The environment was clean, maintained to a good standard and was monitored by the practice manager.

We found staff had an appropriate understanding of safeguarding referrals and the requirement to share sensitive information to safeguard patients. Policy guidance was in place.

We spoke with two patients who used the service who made positive comments about the treatment and advice they received.

The practice had a range of policies, procedures and guidance in place for staff to access, which supported the safe management of the service.