We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards.

Transcription

1 Inspection Report We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards. Benfield Park Medical Group Benfield Park Healthcare & Diagnostic Centre, Benfield Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 4QD Tel: Date of Inspection: 16 October 2013 Date of Publication: February 2014 We inspected the following standards as part of a routine inspection. This is what we found: Respecting and involving people who use services Care and welfare of people who use services Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Cleanliness and infection control Requirements relating to workers Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

2 Details about this location Registered Provider Registered Manager Overview of the service Type of services Regulated activities Benfield Park Medical Group Dr. Paul Netts Benfield Park Medical Practice is located in the Walkergate area of Newcastle. The team consists of four partners and two salaried doctors, practice nursing staff and a team of reception and management staff. The practice offers a range of services including asthma, family planning and diabetic clinics. Doctors consultation service Doctors treatment service Diagnostic and screening procedures Family planning Maternity and midwifery services Treatment of disease, disorder or injury Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

3 Contents When you read this report, you may find it useful to read the sections towards the back called 'About CQC inspections' and 'How we define our judgements'. Summary of this inspection: Page Why we carried out this inspection 4 How we carried out this inspection 4 What people told us and what we found 4 More information about the provider 4 Our judgements for each standard inspected: Respecting and involving people who use services 6 Care and welfare of people who use services 8 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse 11 Cleanliness and infection control 12 Requirements relating to workers 14 About CQC Inspections 15 How we define our judgements 16 Glossary of terms we use in this report 18 Contact us 20 Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

4 Summary of this inspection Why we carried out this inspection This was a routine inspection to check that essential standards of quality and safety referred to on the front page were being met. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection. This was an unannounced inspection. How we carried out this inspection We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and were accompanied by a specialist advisor. What people told us and what we found We also had telephone and contact with the provider on 21 and 23 October 2013 and 01 November 2013, with regards to carrying out an additional interview with a clinical member of staff. The patients we spoke with were satisfied staff at the practice listened to their views, showed them respect and involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. I came in this morning to pick my prescription up and they fitted me in to see the GP.' Another patient said, 'It has a really nice, laid back atmosphere it doesn't seem stressful.' A disabled patient told us the new building was really good and that it was 'Clean and fresh with a lift so you don't have to climb the stairs.' Patients who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The premises were clean, hygienic and patients were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate arrangements had been made to prevent and control the spread of infection. Effective recruitment and selection processes were in place. You can see our judgements on the front page of this report. More information about the provider Please see our website for more information, including our most recent judgements against the essential standards. You can contact us using the telephone number on the back of the report if you have additional questions. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

5 There is a glossary at the back of this report which has definitions for words and phrases we use in the report. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

6 Our judgements for each standard inspected Respecting and involving people who use services People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. Patients' privacy and dignity was respected. Reasons for our judgement Patients who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. The practice's patient information leaflet provided helpful information about such things as the range of services offered and how patients could obtain medical support out of surgery hours. Health promotion literature, and information about services available at the practice, including the patient information leaflet, were available in the main reception area. The practice website, which was easy to use, provided patients with information about opening hours, how to make appointments and obtain repeat prescriptions, and what to do in an emergency. This meant patients who used the service were given appropriate information about what the practice provided and how they could promote their health and wellbeing. We were told arrangements had been made to help patients with disabilities, and those from different ethnic backgrounds, to access the range of services offered by the practice. For example, the practice had a number of disabled parking spaces, disabled toilets on both floors, a drop-off zone for people with disabilities and automated doors leading into the reception area. A lift was provided to the first floor. Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to get into and around the building. The practice had an Audio Loop system for hard of hearing patients. Home visits were provided for patients who were terminally ill or housebound and would find it difficult to visit the practice. One of the doctors we spoke with said the practice's black elders population was predominately Asian. We were told staff were able to access an interpreting service and that the greatest had been for Iranian Farsi speakers. We spoke to a receptionist who told us they knew how to access the interpreting service and had done so in the past when this was necessary. We were told of planned future developments at the practice which would benefit patients with disabilities. For example, the practice had volunteered to act as a 'pilot' for a new scheme to improve health checks for patients with learning disabilities. One of the doctors, who is the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) lead for Ophthalmology, told us they intended to introduce the 'Seeability Project' at the practice which will look at ways of preventing sight loss in Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

7 patients who have a learning disability. (CCGs are responsible for buying healthcare services in their local area.) They also said the regular palliative care reviews they held were helping the practice to identify the needs of carers looking after patients receiving palliative care. (Where there is no known cure for an illness, palliative care tries to make the end of a person's life as comfortable as possible.) The practice manager told us that the practice had recently launched a patient transport scheme in conjunction with the RVS which was aimed at helping older patients and patients with mobility issues to attend doctor and nurse appointments. This meant patients with disabilities, specific health conditions and those whose first language was not English, were able to access the healthcare they needed because the practice had made 'reasonable adjustments' to help them to do so. People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) made up of a group of volunteer patients who had expressed an interest in being involved. The practice website included information about how patients could express an interest in joining the PPG. Minutes from previous PPG meetings had been made available on their website. We met with patients who had arrived for a PPG meeting. They were enthusiastic about the value of participating in the PPG and felt it had given patients a voice. We attended the PPG meeting and witnessed a lively debate between practice staff and patients about a range of issues affecting the life of the practice. The practice manager went through the outcome of the most recent local practice survey and faced challenging questions about what changes might be needed in light of the survey outcomes. The PPG members told us they hoped more would be done to encourage more patients to join the group. This meant patients had opportunities to become involved in, and comment upon, the services provided by the practice. We looked at the results of the most recent National Patient Survey of the practice carried out by Ipsos Mori during the period from July 2012 to March (Ipsos Mori is a market research company.) We saw that 85% of patient respondents said the GP they visited had been 'good' at involving them in decisions about their care and 94% reported they felt the GP had given them 'enough time' during their appointment. The practice manager told us the results of practice surveys were monitored and the results discussed at staff/partner meetings. This meant patients had their views and experiences taken into account in the ay the service was provided. Patients' privacy and dignity was respected. We asked staff about the measures they took to protect patients' privacy and dignity. We were told all consultations took place in private behind a closed door. Throughout the time we spent at the practice, the doors to consultation rooms were always closed during patient-doctor consultations. Privacy curtains were available in all consultation rooms. Reception staff told us should a patient wish to discuss a confidential matter, a private room near the reception desk was available for this purpose. When we checked we found the room was being used for this purpose. Members of the PPG told us their privacy and dignity was always respected. The practice had a chaperone policy. Information about this had been included in the patient information leaflet. This meant arrangements had been made to protect patients' privacy and dignity. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

8 Care and welfare of people who use services People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patients' safety and welfare. Reasons for our judgement Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The practice manager told us the reception area was staffed at all times to help patients feel welcome and to address any queries or concerns they had. The practice manager told us a warm and friendly reception 'helped patients to maintain a positive frame of mind and feel less stressed.' We spent time observing the reception of patients into the practice and found all were treated with respect and courtesy. The receptionist on duty was polite, helpful and reassuring, whilst also dealing with a range of other duties. Automated arrivals screens were available in each waiting area and enabled patients to register they had arrived for their appointment. The practice offered a range of appointments. We were told up to 35 appointments were available each day and other appointments made available for 48 hour advance bookings. Patients were also able to pre-book appointments up to six weeks in advance. We looked at the practice booking system and found there were bookable appointments for doctors and nurses still available on the day of our inspection and over the next couple of days. The practice also offered evening appointments as part of the 'extended hours' enhanced service it provided on Monday and Tuesday evenings. We were told the practice was piloting an 'electronic access advisor' system which will help support reception staff to more effectively manage requests for GP appointments. Information about how to access 'out-of-hours' emergency medical assistance was included in the practice's brochure and the main reception area. Of the patients who participated in the Ipsos Mori National Patient Survey (2012) for this practice: 86% said they found it 'easy' to get through to someone at the practice; 89% said the practice opened at times that was convenient for them. None of the patients we spoke with raised any concerns about the practice's appointments system or access to doctors or nurses. One patient said, 'You don't have to wait too long for an appointment. I came in this morning to pick my prescription up and they fitted me in to see the GP.' Another patient told us they were able to book appointments in the evening and felt the practice was 'very good' at taking account of her working commitments. One patient told us about a formal complaint they had made about the time it had taken to get through on the telephone only to be told to phone back if it was not an emergency. The patient told us the Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

9 practice had written to them and apologised for what had happened. They also said the practice had explained about the new appointment system they were trying out. They told us they were satisfied with this response. Overall, patients were happy with the appointments system which they said met their needs. The Ipsos Mori National Patient Survey found that 90% of patients who responded approved of the experience they had had during their consultations with doctors at the practice and 95% approved of their experience during consultations with nurses. We asked patients if they were satisfied with the standards of care and treatment they received. All of the patients we spoke with were very complimentary about the attitude of staff working at the practice. Reception staff were considered to be friendly and helpful, and the clinical staff very good. Patients mentioned that nurses and doctors were 'good listeners', 'very easy to talk to' and were 'good communicators'. A doctor working at the practice told us medical consultations involved listening to patients, gathering information about their concerns, and providing them with advice about possible management plans and treatment choices available to them. We were told the practice made use of the 'Choose and Book' service which they said helped to promote patient choice and involvement. ('Choose and Book' is a national service that combines electronic booking and a choice of place, date and time for first hospital or clinic appointments.) Patients told us they felt listened to and involved in their care and treatment. This meant patients were supported to be involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Systems were in place to manage patients with long-term chronic conditions. We were told the practice had developed a recall system which meant patients on the chronic disease registers were invited in for annual healthcare checks, and for other types of interventions. Practice nursing staff had been given responsibilities for the management of patients with long-term conditions. The practice's clinical governance systems had recently been reviewed following the retirement of previous partners. (Clinical governance is a system through which organisations are responsible for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care.) The doctor we spoke with said the practice was in the process of moving towards a more team-based approach to managing and reviewing their Quality Outcome Framework (QOF) performance. (The QOF is a voluntary incentive scheme for GP practices in the UK, and rewards them for how well they care for patients.) They said the practice had 'signed up' to a range of 'enhanced services' to help them deliver high quality care across a range of areas, such as coronary heart disease and hypertension. Practice policies, clinical protocols, diaries and meeting minutes were accessible on the practice's intranet. Staff had access to this information according to their role within the practice. We confirmed practice policies were regularly reviewed and where necessary, updated. The practice manager told us they were about to update the practice's disciplinary policy, following training delivered by the British Medical Association. We saw minutes were kept of meetings and a new system had recently been introduced for recording actions and reporting on progress made. The practice had equipment for managing emergencies. This included medication and resuscitation equipment. Notices informing staff about the location of the resuscitation equipment were on display. We found the drugs available for emergency purposes were within their expiry dates which meant they were safe to use. We saw weekly checks were carried out to make sure emergency drugs and resuscitation equipment were satisfactorily maintained. Reception staff told us they had recently received Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) training and knew how Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

10 to handle a medical emergency, both in the practice and over the phone. We checked the practice's training records and confirmed all staff had completed training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This meant patients were protected from harm because staff had been told how to look after them in an emergency. The practice had developed a policy which provided staff with guidance on how to respond to, report and review incidents and significant events. We were told the practice conducted regular 'Significant Event Reviews' (SERs) and systems had been put in place to analyse, and learn from, 'near misses'. We were given an example of changes made at the practice following a recent SER. When treating an unwell patient, staff found the oxygen cylinder was not where it should have been. This incident was discussed at a SER meeting and a number of changes were introduced, including a review of emergency procedures and equipment. We confirmed these actions points had been implemented. This meant the practice had made arrangements to learn from adverse events, incidents and 'near misses', to help minimise the risk of these being repeated. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

11 Safeguarding people who use services from abuse People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Reasons for our judgement The practice had developed policies and procedures which covered the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults. The practice's safeguarding adults policy had been written by the Clinical Commissioning Group's (CCG) GP lead. The policy was comprehensive, and covered the signs and symptoms of abuse and how to respond to adults who had experienced or were experiencing abuse. The policy covered how to make alerts and to whom these alerts should be made. The practice had adopted the Royal College of General Practitioners' (RCGP) toolkit for safeguarding children and young people, for use within the practice. (The RCGP's toolkit provides general practices with the guidance they need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people.) This meant patients were protected from harm because staff had access to guidance which told them when they should refer concerns about children and vulnerable adults to another agency and how they should do this. The provider may find it useful to note the practice had not completed the relevant sections of the RCGP toolkit guidance that are specific to the practice, such as the date when the policy will be reviewed. We were told arrangements had been made for all staff to complete safeguarding training appropriate to their role within the practice. We were told a new partner, who acted as the safeguarding lead for the practice, was due to complete Level 3 training in child protection. A recently appointed doctor had completed Level 2 child protection training, as well as adult safeguarding awareness training. We were told arrangements would be made for a third doctor, who had also just started working for the practice, to complete both adult safeguarding and child protection training. The practice manager confirmed the practice nurse and reception staff had completed child and adult protection training to an appropriate level. This meant arrangements had been made to ensure staff received appropriate training in how to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, young people and vulnerable adults. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

12 Cleanliness and infection control People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Reasons for our judgement There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The practice was very clean and hygienic throughout. It was also tidy, well organised and in a good state of repair. Appropriate signage and facilities for waste disposal were in place. We were told the Newcastle Hospital Foundation Trust had overall responsibility for the cleaning regime and employed staff to carry out cleaning at the practice. Personal protective equipment and hand hygiene gel was available throughout the surgery, including the main reception area. Spillage kits were also available in the reception area. (Spillage kits enable clinical and non-clinical staff to clean up spillages of blood, urine and vomit safely and effectively.) We were told staff received an annual infection control update. The sample of records we looked at confirmed this. This meant patients were protected from the risk of infection because the premises were clean and staff had been trained in how to prevent the spread of infection. The practice had developed an infection prevention and control policy which provided guidance regarding expected infection control standards. The policy confirmed the practice had a nominated infection control lead, which meant there was an identified person to oversee infection control arrangements within the practice. The policy included the contact details of the local Trust's infection control clinical nurse specialist. The policy identified which doctor had lead responsibilities for reviewing the policy and when the policy would next be reviewed. This meant staff had access to up-to-date guidance which told them how they should prevent the spread of infection. Arrangements had been made to check that infection prevention and control standards within the practice were satisfactory. A matron (deputy specialty manager), employed by the local Trust to check infection control arrangements in the practice, told us they completed a monthly clinical assessment tool. This focussed on all aspects of building management including cleanliness, safety and training. The nurse also told us, that they, along with the practice manager, carried out two monthly checks of areas used by both Trust and practice staff. A more detailed quarterly inspection of individual areas within the practice, and other parts of the premises, was also undertaken by an independent contractor. We looked at a sample of records, including cleaning policies and logs and audit tools, which confirmed what we had been told. We also saw that these records had been checked and, where issues and problems had been identified, action had been taken Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

13 to address them. We confirmed arrangements were in place to make sure relevant staff were immunised against Hepatitis B. This meant patients were protected from health acquired infections because the provider had taken steps to check that the required infection prevention and control standards were being met. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

14 Requirements relating to workers People should be cared for by staff who are properly qualified and able to do their job Our judgement The provider was meeting this standard. Patients were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Reasons for our judgement Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. The practice had devised a recruitment policy which provided guidance about how practice staff should be recruited. We did not look at the employment records of staff appointed before the practice was registered by the Care Quality Commission. Two clinical staff had been appointed since the practice's registration in April We looked at the records for these staff and saw a Curriculum Vitae (CV) had been obtained for each person. These included details of their previous employment history and vocational training placements. We also found steps had been taken to verify their identity. The practice manager told us information about an applicant's physical and mental health would only be obtained if it was relevant to the post they had applied for. We were told Disclosure and Barring Service checks had been obtained for both staff, as they would have direct one-to-one contact with patients. There was evidence the practice had carried out checks to make sure both staff were registered with the relevant professional body. Evidence of satisfactory conduct for their most recent period of employment had been obtained for one of these staff. This meant patients were protected from harm because the provider had taken steps to make sure only suitable staff were employed to work at the practice. The provider may find it useful to note a written record of the verbal reference taken for this member of staff was not available at the time of our visit to the practice. Evidence of satisfactory conduct for a second staff member was also not available. We were told this person had very recently completed a satisfactory placement with the practice and had not worked anywhere else before starting with the practice. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

15 About CQC inspections We are the regulator of health and social care in England. All providers of regulated health and social care services have a legal responsibility to make sure they are meeting essential standards of quality and safety. These are the standards everyone should be able to expect when they receive care. The essential standards are described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations We regulate against these standards, which we sometimes describe as "government standards". We carry out unannounced inspections of all care homes, acute hospitals and domiciliary care services in England at least once a year to judge whether or not the essential standards are being met. We carry out inspections of other services less often. All of our inspections are unannounced unless there is a good reason to let the provider know we are coming. There are 16 essential standards that relate most directly to the quality and safety of care and these are grouped into five key areas. When we inspect we could check all or part of any of the 16 standards at any time depending on the individual circumstances of the service. Because of this we often check different standards at different times. When we inspect, we always visit and we do things like observe how people are cared for, and we talk to people who use the service, to their carers and to staff. We also review information we have gathered about the provider, check the service's records and check whether the right systems and processes are in place. We focus on whether or not the provider is meeting the standards and we are guided by whether people are experiencing the outcomes they should be able to expect when the standards are being met. By outcomes we mean the impact care has on the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service, and the experience they have whilst receiving it. Our inspectors judge if any action is required by the provider of the service to improve the standard of care being provided. Where providers are non-compliant with the regulations, we take enforcement action against them. If we require a service to take action, or if we take enforcement action, we re-inspect it before its next routine inspection was due. This could mean we re-inspect a service several times in one year. We also might decide to reinspect a service if new concerns emerge about it before the next routine inspection. In between inspections we continually monitor information we have about providers. The information comes from the public, the provider, other organisations, and from care workers. You can tell us about your experience of this provider on our website. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

16 How we define our judgements The following pages show our findings and regulatory judgement for each essential standard or part of the standard that we inspected. Our judgements are based on the ongoing review and analysis of the information gathered by CQC about this provider and the evidence collected during this inspection. We reach one of the following judgements for each essential standard inspected. This means that the standard was being met in that the provider was compliant with the regulation. If we find that standards were met, we take no regulatory action but we may make comments that may be useful to the provider and to the public about minor improvements that could be made. Action needed This means that the standard was not being met in that the provider was non-compliant with the regulation. We may have set a compliance action requiring the provider to produce a report setting out how and by when changes will be made to make sure they comply with the standard. We monitor the implementation of action plans in these reports and, if necessary, take further action. We may have identified a breach of a regulation which is more serious, and we will make sure action is taken. We will report on this when it is complete. Enforcement action taken If the breach of the regulation was more serious, or there have been several or continual breaches, we have a range of actions we take using the criminal and/or civil procedures in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and relevant regulations. These enforcement powers include issuing a warning notice; restricting or suspending the services a provider can offer, or the number of people it can care for; issuing fines and formal cautions; in extreme cases, cancelling a provider or managers registration or prosecuting a manager or provider. These enforcement powers are set out in law and mean that we can take swift, targeted action where services are failing people. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

17 How we define our judgements (continued) Where we find non-compliance with a regulation (or part of a regulation), we state which part of the regulation has been breached. Only where there is non compliance with one or more of Regulations 9-24 of the Regulated Activity Regulations, will our report include a judgement about the level of impact on people who use the service (and others, if appropriate to the regulation). This could be a minor, moderate or major impact. Minor impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had an impact on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The impact was not significant and the matter could be managed or resolved quickly. Moderate impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a significant effect on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The matter may need to be resolved quickly. Major impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a serious current or long term impact on their health, safety and welfare, or there was a risk of this happening. The matter needs to be resolved quickly We decide the most appropriate action to take to ensure that the necessary changes are made. We always follow up to check whether action has been taken to meet the standards. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

18 Glossary of terms we use in this report Essential standard The essential standards of quality and safety are described in our Guidance about compliance: Essential standards of quality and safety. They consist of a significant number of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations These regulations describe the essential standards of quality and safety that people who use health and adult social care services have a right to expect. A full list of the standards can be found within the Guidance about compliance. The 16 essential standards are: Respecting and involving people who use services - Outcome 1 (Regulation 17) Consent to care and treatment - Outcome 2 (Regulation 18) Care and welfare of people who use services - Outcome 4 (Regulation 9) Meeting Nutritional Needs - Outcome 5 (Regulation 14) Cooperating with other providers - Outcome 6 (Regulation 24) Safeguarding people who use services from abuse - Outcome 7 (Regulation 11) Cleanliness and infection control - Outcome 8 (Regulation 12) Management of medicines - Outcome 9 (Regulation 13) Safety and suitability of premises - Outcome 10 (Regulation 15) Safety, availability and suitability of equipment - Outcome 11 (Regulation 16) Requirements relating to workers - Outcome 12 (Regulation 21) Staffing - Outcome 13 (Regulation 22) Supporting Staff - Outcome 14 (Regulation 23) Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision - Outcome 16 (Regulation 10) Complaints - Outcome 17 (Regulation 19) Records - Outcome 21 (Regulation 20) Regulated activity These are prescribed activities related to care and treatment that require registration with CQC. These are set out in legislation, and reflect the services provided. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

19 Glossary of terms we use in this report (continued) (Registered) Provider There are several legal terms relating to the providers of services. These include registered person, service provider and registered manager. The term 'provider' means anyone with a legal responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the law are carried out. On our website we often refer to providers as a 'service'. Regulations We regulate against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations Responsive inspection This is carried out at any time in relation to identified concerns. Routine inspection This is planned and could occur at any time. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection. Themed inspection This is targeted to look at specific standards, sectors or types of care. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February

20 Contact us Phone: Write to us at: Care Quality Commission Citygate Gallowgate Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4PA Website: Copyright Copyright (2011) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with the title and date of publication of the document specified. Inspection Report Benfield Park Medical Group February