The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Urgent care service or mobile doctor

King Street Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

47 King Street, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF1 2SN (01924) 882350

Provided and run by:
Local Care Direct Limited

All Inspections

05 April 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection of King Street Health Centre on 5 April 2022. We undertook this inspection as part of a system-wide inspection looking at a range of urgent and emergency care providers in West Yorkshire. This was an unrated inspection.

A summary of CQC findings on urgent and emergency care services in West Yorkshire.

Urgent and emergency care services across England have been and continue to be under sustained pressure. In response, CQC is undertaking a series of coordinated inspections, monitoring calls and analysis of data to identify how services in a local area work together to ensure patients receive safe, effective and timely care. We have summarised our findings for West Yorkshire below:

West Yorkshire.

Provision of urgent and emergency care in West Yorkshire was supported by multiple provider services, stakeholders, commissioners and local authorities.

We spoke with staff in services across primary care, integrated urgent care, community, acute, mental health, ambulance services and adult social care. Staff continued to work under sustained pressure across health and social care and system leaders were working together to support their workforce and to identify opportunities to improve. System partners worked together to find new ways of working, linking with community services to meet the needs of their communities; however, people continued to experience delays in accessing care and treatment.

During our inspections, some staff and patients reported difficulties with providing and accessing telephone appointments in GP practices. Some of these issues were caused by telephony systems which were being resolved locally. We found inconsistencies with triage processes in primary care which could result in people being inappropriately signposted to urgent and emergency care services. However, a number of staff working in social care services reported good engagement with local GPs.

We visited some community services in West Yorkshire and found these were generally well run. Service leaders were working collaboratively to identify opportunities to improve patient pathways across urgent and emergency care. These improvements focused on meeting the needs of local communities and alleviating pressure on other services. There were strong partnerships with social care and community teams, so patients had the right support in place on discharge.

However, we inspected one intermediate care service and found it could only take referrals from an acute trust, which meant there were no step-up facilities for patients in the community. The service struggled for ward space to deliver therapeutic activities and there were no communal spaces for patients to meet together or engage in group therapy. Plans were in place to provide additional facilities and to reconfigure the existing layout to provide communal spaces.

The NHS111 service was experiencing significant staffing challenges and were in the process of recruiting a high number of new staff. Staff working in this service had experienced an increase in demand, particularly from people trying to access dental treatment although a system was in place to manage the need for dental advice and assessment. Due to demand and capacity issues, performance was poor in some key areas, such as providing a call back to patients from a clinician.

The ambulance service had an improvement programme in place focused on performance and staffing. Whilst we saw some improvement in ambulance response times and handover delays, performance remained below target. We identified impact on other services due to the availability of 999 responses; for example, a maternity service had to close temporarily to keep women safe, due to system escalation and because ambulance responses couldn’t be guaranteed in an emergency. Staff working in social care services also experienced lengthy delays in ambulance response times which further impacted on their ability to provide care to their residents.

We inspected some mental health services in Wakefield which were delivering person-centred care and responded to urgent needs in a timely way. Staff worked in multi-disciplinary teams and collaborated with system partners.

People’s experiences of Emergency Departments were varied depending on which service they accessed. Some Emergency Departments had long delays whilst others performed relatively well. In services struggling to meet demand, patient flow was a key factor. Poor patient flow was primarily caused by delays in discharge with a high number of people fit for discharge unable to access community or social care services.

Staff working in some social care services reported significant challenges in relation to unsafe discharge processes, this included a lack of information to support their transfer of care and we were told of examples when this resulted in people having to return to hospital. Local stakeholders had a good understanding of this problem and were looking to improve pathways and discharge planning.

Staffing and capacity issues in both care homes and domiciliary social care services have at times impacted on timely and safe discharge from hospital.

We found services were under continued pressure and people experienced difficulties accessing urgent and emergency care services in West Yorkshire. System and service leaders across West Yorkshire were working together to seek opportunities for improvement by providing services and pathways to meet people’s needs in the community; however, progress was needed to demonstrate significant improvement in people’s experience of accessing urgent and emergency care.

At the inspection of King Street Health Centre we found:

  • The service had systems in place to manage risk so that if safety incidents occurred, they were investigated and any learning from them was shared and used to improve the service and prevent the recurrence of similar issues.
  • Safeguarding systems, processes and practices had been developed, implemented and communicated to staff to manage risk and ensure patient safety.
  • Staff informed us that they had access to policies, procedures and guidance relevant to their role and responsibilities including clinical protocols and guidance.
  • The provider had appropriate clinical equipment in place to enable the effective assessment of patients. The provider also had the necessary equipment and medicines available to deal with medical emergencies including emergency resuscitation equipment.
  • Infection prevention and control was appropriately managed to help safeguard people from COVID-19 and healthcare associated infections.
  • There were arrangements in place for planning and monitoring the number and mix of staff needed. There was also an effective system in place for dealing with surges in demand. The provider supported the training of advanced care practitioners to increase clinical capacity.
  • There were processes in place to coordinate, monitor and respond to the clinical needs of presenting patients.
  • Clinical records viewed showed that care and treatment was provided safely, effectively and in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. The provider had systems in place to audit consultations and prescribing practices.
  • Quality and performance was routinely monitored and records indicated that the service was performing well against key performance indicators such as initial assessments, and completion of care.
  • The provider had an effective governance system in place that enabled ongoing monitoring and scrutiny of the operation and performance of the services provided. We saw that meetings were regularly held at both an operational and a senior management level.
  • There were effective communication systems in place to facilitate information sharing across the organisation.
  • Staff had access to induction, training and development opportunities. We saw that staff had received regular supervision and support and were subject to appraisal.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning, improvement and innovation. This included via a programme of clinical and non-clinical audits, and participation in several pilot initiatives to improve local access to care.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

31 January 2019 to 31 January 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at King Street Health Centre on 31 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At the last inspection in June 2018 we rated the practice as good overall, with a rating of requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report regarding the June 2018 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for King Street Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The practice was rated as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

  • The provider was not able to give full assurance that all Patient Group Directions and updates had been fully authorised.
  • The provider had not checked or recorded the immunity status of applicable staff with regard to measles, mumps and rubella, and chickenpox.
  • There was only limited assurance regarding the system for checking emergency medicines and equipment.
  • All relevant staff were not aware of the symptoms of sepsis.

In addition to the areas for improvement identified under the key question of providing safe services, at the inspection in June 2018 we also said the practice should consider improving the following area:

  • Review and improve communication activities with staff.

At this inspection, we found that the provider had satisfactorily addressed these areas.

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based on a combination of what we found when we inspected, information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and information from the provider and other organisations.

Overall the practice is now rated as good overall, with the practice rated as good for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The provider had adopted practices and processes which ensured Patient Group Directions had been fully authorised, and that staff were fully competent to deliver vaccinations and immunisations.
  • The provider had made, or was in the process of making, the necessary checks to assure themselves of the immunity status of all relevant staff members. This included status checks in relation the measles, mumps and rubella, and chickenpox.
  • We saw that the provider had developed and implemented processes for the checking of emergency medicines and equipment.
  • Staff had introduced processes and procedures, and raised staff awareness, to enable them to identify and manage patients with severe infections including sepsis.
  • The provider had improved communication with staff members. We saw for example, that staff bulletins were circulated and there were mechanisms in place for staff to cascade feedback to managers.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

12 June 2018 to 12 June 2018

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. The health centre had previously been inspected in April 2016 as a GP service with walk-in centre when it had been rated as Good overall with Requires Improvement for the provision of effective services. Since this inspection the health centre has ceased to provide GP services and has operated solely as a walk-in centre.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires Improvement

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 King Street Health Centre on 12 June 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The service had good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The service 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 people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect, although confidentially during initial booking in was at times limited due to the layout of the reception and waiting area.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs. The provider had introduced assessment processes to better cope with periods of high demand.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • The provider had a strong focus on staff development and had supported the introduction of trainee advanced clinical practitioners to improve workforce capacity.
  • Staff consistently said that they were proud to work for the organisation.

The were areas where the provider should make improvements these include:

  • Review and embed processes to give assurance that all Patient Group Directions and updates have been fully authorised and signed by required staff.
  • Review and improve the recording of the immunity status of applicable staff with regard to measles, mumps and rubella, and chickenpox.
  • Review and maintain processes to give assurance that emergency medicines and equipment were being regularly checked.
  • Review and improve staff awareness of the symptoms of sepsis.
  • Review and improve communication activities with staff.

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

12 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at King Street Health Centre on 12 April 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The provider was not registered with the Care Quality Commission for all of the regulated activities carried out at the practice. When this was pointed out to the provider they took immediate steps to rectify this, and applications for additional regulated activities to be added to the location have been made.

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed the practice was rated below average for its satisfaction scores on consultations with GPs and nurses.
  • 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.
  • 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 easy to make an appointment with a GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

  • Overall the practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • Child immunisation rates were significantly below the Clinical Commissioning Group average for five year olds.

There were areas where the provider should make improvement:

  • The provider should review their stock control processes and make certain that all staff are aware of the location of emergency medicines within the practice.

  • The provider should continue to take steps to ensure they are registered with the Care Quality Commission for the appropriate regulated activities before these are carried out on site, in line with the current arrangements.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

On our previous inspection we found that the arrangements which the provider had in place regarding the governance and audit of

professional training meant there was a risk that inappropriate care could be provided.

We have received documentation which showed that the provider now has robust arrangements in place to assure that patients are cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Regulation 23(1) (A)

5 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three patients who were accessing the service on the day of our inspection.

Positive feedback was given to us by all three patients. All patients stated that staff worked with them in a collaborative manner and always obtained their permission before examining them, providing them with a treatment or referring them elsewhere.

One patient described the service as being "quick and efficient" and that staff had "made me feel comfortable". This patient described staff as being "great". A different patient gave "full marks for this place" and spoke of the service being "convenient". Another patient described the service as usually being "perfect" with the staff being "brilliant".

We saw that the service worked closely with other agencies and professionals to help drive service improvements and the delivery of care.

We found that the premises were well maintained; a range of risk assessments had been carried out, and checks undertaken, to ensure the building was kept safe.

The provider had in place staff appraisals and were in the process of introducing a more formal supervision process. Training was available to staff; some of this training was mandatory. We found that some staffs' mandatory training had expired by several months; we found this lapse to be unacceptable.