The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Oxford Terrace & Rawling Road Medical Group

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Oxford Terrace, Bensham, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, NE8 1RQ (0191) 477 2169

Provided and run by:
Oxford Terrace & Rawling Road Medical Group

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oxford Terrace & Rawling Road Medical Group 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 Oxford Terrace & Rawling Road Medical Group, you can give feedback on this service.

31 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Oxford Terrace & Rawling Road Medical Group on 31 October 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.

12 October 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Oxford Terrace and Rawling Road Medical Group on 17 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good; but was requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the October 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Oxford Terrace and Rawling Road Medical Group on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 12 October 2017 to review in detail the actions taken by the practice to improve the quality of care.

The practice is rated as good overall, now including for providing safe services.

Our key findings at this inspection were as follows:

  • The practice had implemented an action plan to address the issues identified during the previous inspection. The relevant improvements had been made.
  • All non-clinical staff who had not received a DBS check had a risk assessment in their staff file as to why this was not necessary. We looked at a sample of two staff records and saw this to be the case.
  • We saw that the process for patient safety alerts had been strengthened. The practice policy was now to add them to the practice meeting agenda. We saw minutes to confirm this. There were copies of the alerts held with relevant action noted.
  • Vaccine refrigerators were monitored correctly to ensure they were fit for purpose.
  • The practice had the appropriate spillage kits and a cleaning schedule for the spirometer and nebuliser.

At our previous inspection on 17 October 2016 we said the provider should make improvements in some areas. We saw at this inspection that improvements had been made;

  • A comprehensive checking process had been implemented to ensure that emergency medicines and equipment were suitable for use.
  • Patient group directions (PGDs) were signed in line with recommended guidance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17 October 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Oxford Terrace and Rawling Road on 17 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • The practice carried out clinical audit activity.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was comparable with local and national averages. Patients reported that they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. Patient feedback in relation to access was better than local clinical commissioning group and national averages.
  • Patients were able to access same day appointments. Pre-bookable appointments were available within acceptable timescales.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, which were reviewed and updated regularly.
  • The practice had proactively sought feedback from patients and implemented suggestions for improvement and made changes to the way they delivered services in response to feedback.
  • The practice used the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) as one method of monitoring effectiveness and had achieved an overall result which was higher than local and national averages.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • They had a clear vision in which quality and safety was prioritised. The strategy to deliver this vision was regularly discussed and reviewed.
  • The practice had developed an in-house Complex Care Team to care for frail and elderly patients in their own home or care home and prevent unnecessary admission to hospital. Comprehensive care plans were in place for high risk, housebound and care home patients. Dedicated administrative support was attached to the team and ensured that the team were aware of relevant patients and that their care and treatment was discussed and reviewed at weekly multi-disciplinary team meetings.
  • They had obtained funding to pilot the employment of a practice based occupational therapist on a secondment basis for 19 hours per week. The aim of this role was to optimise the health and wellbeing of frail older people through timely targeted intervention.
  • The practice employed primary care navigators to advise and support patients and carers with any social need that maybe affecting their health including maintaining independence and social inclusion.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice:

  • They had developed a self-help group for young people with type 1 diabetes in the area. A young person with the condition had been appointed as the project coordinator and the practice had employed a diabetes specialist nurse. The aim was to engage young people in managing their condition through the use of electronic information and telecommunication technologies which would allow long distance communication between a patient and a clinician. The practice had been awarded second place in the Bright Ideas in Innovation Awards 2016 for improving services for young children with type 1 diabetes.
  • The practice had recruited a number of volunteer practice health champions (volunteers who work with GP practices to improve services and to help meet the health needs of patients in their community) and together they had developed a number of social clubs and events for their patients to aid social inclusion. They had also hosted a lunch on Christmas Day for vulnerable or socially isolated patients and hosted tea dances for people with long term conditions and for armed forces veterans to promote self-care and social inclusion.

However, there were also areas where the provider must make improvements. Importantly, the provider must:

  • Implement a comprehensive checking process to ensure there are no out of date emergency medicines or equipment held on the premises.
  • Ensure all patient group directions (PGDs) are signed in line with recommended guidance.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice