We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Tudor Medical Centre on 12 December 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

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 good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

• 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 provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. 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.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

• Carry out a risk assessment to assess whether they needed to keep medicine to treat croup in children in stock.

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

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 Tudor Medical Centre on 1 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• 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. Verbal complaints were not monitored.
• Most patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. However some patients told us that it was not always easy to get an appointment in a timely way.
• 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.

The practice was involved in local initiatives and was in the process of merging with a local practice which would increase the size of the practice population it served.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice