This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

'Inadequate'-rated GP practice brings judicial review claim against CQC

An ‘inadequate’ Newcastle practice with 14,600 patients, which has been put in special measures, is taking the CQC to a judicial review.

The Newcastle Medical Centre which is in a city-centre branch of Boots was placed in special measures last week.

The practice has a high number of students and patients whose first language is not English. The majority of patients are aged 20-29 years old.

The CQC rated the practice inadequate for the well-led and effective categories and said it needed to improve on its responsiveness.

The practice was rated good in the safe and caring categories.

In a statement it said it ‘is disappointed that CQC has currently rated the practice as Inadequate for the key questions of "effective" and "well-led".

'Due to the way in which CQC rates practices this automatically leads to a rating of "inadequate" overall and the practice being in special measures.’

It is pursuing a judicial review claim ‘in relation to CQC's processes adopted during and after the December 2016 inspection and the resultant individual key question ratings, patient group ratings and overall rating that CQC has given'.

The practice said: ‘One of the main areas of challenge is the fact that CQC's National Quality Assurance Panel (which has not attended the practice themselves nor spoken to staff) downgraded the requires improvement rating which was given by the inspection team (who did actually attend at the practice) to Inadequate, without adequate reasons being given.’

After last month’s follow-up inspection the CQC said the practice should monitor its outcomes against similar services, to improve its effectiveness.

It said that records of significant events ‘did not consistently detail discussion, actions taken and learning to lead improvements'.

The practice was also told it should ‘ensure that accurate notes were always maintained for each patient'.

It has hired a consultant to help it continue improvements.

The CQC noted the practice began work on an action plan after last December’s inspection when it was rated inadequate.

However the inspectors said: ‘The practice’s system for identifying, capturing and managing issues and risks was not effective'.

Alison Holbourn, deputy chief inspector of general practice for the north said: ‘While we appreciate patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect, we have also found some significant areas of concern, which is why we are placing the practice into special measures - so opening the way to further improvement, and to enable the practice to receive support from NHS England among others.’

Readers' comments (7)

  • CQC is unfit for purpose. Nuff sayd.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    If it has to be a JR , let it be a JR(judicial review).
    We shall all respect the outcome.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think they do need challenging... I am not sure the CQC assessments are very evidence based or reproducible. It is just opinion based and dependent on the inspectors you have...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Will the BMA assist? Or even express support? The doctor's Union looks to be sitting on the fence whilst the doctors get a kicking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ 9.53am

    Really am starting to believe that the BMA have been infiltrated by the DoH.

    The Chris Day case ongoing is quite incredible regarding the manner in which the BMA have been undermining the case. Mark Porter claiming their legal advice advised the case had no merits yet its gone to JR and the BMA appear to be refusing to release their advice. (BMA appears to only mostly use one law firm, Gately, too). Even BMA reps can't believe it.

    Would be great if PULSE could put together an article of cases in recent years (perhaps Remedy onwards) where they seemd to be barn door for the doctors union yet the BMA either left individuals on their own or even underminned / sued their own members.

    Nigel, any thoughts on this or perhaps an article on the need for a new doctors union?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment


  • Agree.We need a new Doctors union the BMA dont seem to represent the proffession anymore.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Special measures....not well led. I thought the belief that the bigger the practice the better they are, led by multinational co-operations. Obviously not.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say