The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Noakbridge Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Bridge Street,, Noak Bridge,, Basildon, Essex, SS15 4EZ (01268) 284285

Provided and run by:
Noakbridge Medical 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 Noakbridge Medical 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 Noakbridge Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

31 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Noakbridge Medical Centre on 31 December 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.

7 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We first carried out a comprehensive inspection at Noakbridge Medical Centre on 6 July 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The practice was requires improvement for providing safe, responsive and well-led services and good for providing effective and caring services. As a result, the practice was issued with a requirement notice for good governance.

The full report for the July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Noakbridge Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At our 7 August 2017 comprehensive inspection we found the practice had addressed all concerns highlighted from the previous inspection and improvements had been made. Overall the practice is now 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 confirmed discussions had been held and lessons learnt. We found evidence to demonstrate how learning had been shared and changes embedded into practice.
  • Patient safety and medicine alerts had been appropriately responded to and revisited.
  • All practice policies and protocols were practice specific, updated and reviewed including their significant events policy, infection prevention procedures and legionella risk assessment.
  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement, evidence of analysis had been seen and new methods implemented. We found the practice had revisited audits in line with national guidelines.
  • The practice had reviewed their national GP survey July 2017 results and were implementing action plans to address the telephone issues that were raised.
  • 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.
  • Children or vulnerable adults who failed to attend hospital appointments were followed up appropriately.
  • Recruitment records were maintained for all staff.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice held regular staff and clinical meetings which were documented and available for all staff to view.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand. Complaints were responded to at the time of reporting where possible. Learning from complaints was shared with staff at clinical meetings and an annual review of complaints was conducted.
  • All staff had received a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check and an appraisal within the last 12 months.
  • We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.
  • We found that staff had a clear understanding of key issues such as safeguarding, Mental Capacity Act and consent.
  • The practice had identified 35 patients as a carer which was approximately 0.8% of their patient list.
  • The practice had a clear vision and strategy which staff understood and strived towards.

The areas where the practice should make improvements are as follows:

  • Continue to improve the process for the identification of carers.
  • Continue to monitor and ensure improvement to national GP patient survey results.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

6 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Noakbridge Medical Centre on 6 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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

  • There was a system in place for reporting and recording significant events. However there was no policy in place and the documentation did not reflect discussions held and checks to demonstrate improvements had been embedded into practice.
  • Patient safety and medicines alerts were shared within the clinical team. However, searches of patient records were not revisited to ensure all patients affected had been identified and the information appropriately actioned.
  • Clinical and administrative staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities and means of escalating concerns internally and externally. The practice was not following up patients who did not attend for a hospital appointment to see if they were at risk.
  • The practice appeared clean and tidy. There was an appointed infection prevention control lead but they had not received appropriate training or support to undertake the role.
  • The practice had appropriate arrangements in place for managing medicines safely.
  • Appropriate recruitment records had not been maintained for a member of the clinical team such as proof of identification and professional registration.
  • The practice had not undertaken a health and safety risk assessment to identify the risks to patients and staff.
  • The practice had arrangements in place to respond to emergencies or incidents that may disrupt the service.
  • The most recent published results showed the practice had achieved 99% of the total number of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) points available. This was above the local and national averages for clinical performance.
  • There was a culture of clinical and administrative audit to promote understanding of performance and to inform quality improvements in services.
  • The practice provided training to their staff. However, not all development needs of their clinical team had been addressed.
  • Patients told us staff were friendly, polite and helpful and reported higher than local and national average levels of satisfaction with the practice nurse.
  • The practice provided a range of clinical appointments including face to face, telephone, web GP and operated extended hours GP and nurse appointments on a Tuesday evening until 7.30pm. However, some patients reported difficulties making appointments, a reoccurring theme evidenced in discussions with the PPG since 2014.
  • Patients reported lower than local and national levels of satisfaction with their experience of GP consultations in the national GP patient survey, 2016.
  • The practice staff tried to resolve concerns at the time of reporting. Formal complaints were found to have been appropriately recorded, investigated and responded to. However, there was consistent documenting of discussions with persons relating to complaint investigations. Learning had been identified and changes to practice discussed with staff.
  • The partners had the experience and ability to run the practice.
  • Clinical meetings were held inconsistently and minutes taken were found to be incomplete. They lacked evidence of discussion, decisions, actions assigned, dates for review or completion of tasks.
  • The practice spoke highly of their patient participation group and acted on issues raised.
  • The practice engaged in opportunities to continuously learn and make improvement at all levels of the service.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure infection prevention control procedures are robust and where areas for improvement are identified ensure appropriate action has been taken and recorded. Provide training of staff to undertake infection control duties. .
  • Undertake a health and safety and legionella risk assessment as required by legislation.
  • Act on patient feedback and improve patient satisfaction by responding to the results of the national GP patient survey.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure appropriate recruitment records are maintained for all staff.
  • Produce a significant incident policy and ensure the recording of discussions, actions and checks to ensure changes have been embedded into practice.
  • Formalise and review following up on children or vulnerable persons who fail to attend hospital appointments.
  • Ensure staff development needs are addressed through training and evidenced within their personnel records.
  • Ensure accurate records are maintained of clinical meetings, including attendance, discussion, actions allocate and outcomes.
  • Ensure consistent documenting of discussions with persons relating to complaint investigations.
  • Consider formalising the vision and strategy for the practice.
  • Revisit patient medicine alerts to ensure all patients that may be adversely affected have been appropriately identified and medicines reviewed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice