Sheffield health: McKenzie practice in Broomhill ends GP work after ‘inadequate’ verdict from CQC

But Dr Andrew McKenzie’s practice on Whitham Road, Broomhill, will instead do work for employers as he switches to doing occupational physician work instead.

The McKenzie practice was judged as inadequate after an inspection in June, with the findings now published by the Care Quality Commission.

The report gave an overall rating of inadequate, with the same grade for its safety and its leadership. It was rated as requiring improvement for effectiveness of services and caring. But it was rated as good for its responsiveness to people’s needs.

Dr McKenzie, aged 69, said he had been thinking of leaving general practice, and the CQC report was the last straw in his decision to leave that part of medicine.

HEALTH: Surgeries pull out of £37million Sheffield GPs health centre plans, as public reveal travel concerns

He said: “I’m retiring from general practice and I will no longer see patients in that capacity. I retired from GP work at the end of last month.

"However I will still be able to do other work as an occupational physician.

"My former GP patients are going to other practices. I will be working with people who need medicals for work. I had been talking about doing this for some time.”

Dr McKenzie has worked as a private GP for 30 years. “I think I’ve done my bit,” he said.

Whitham Road site now used for occupational physician work

He will be keeping his Whitham Road premises on for his work as an occupational physician.

The CQC report had found the GP practice did not not have systems to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse; systems to assess and manage risks to patient safety were ineffective; and the service did not have reliable systems for the appropriate and safe handling of medicines. The service did not always learn and make improvements when things went wrong, either, inspectors said.

HEALTH: Sheffield NHS GP supersurgeries: This is what residents affected by £37m plan think

The CQC also found ‘limited involvement’ in quality improvement activity; there was not a coordinated approach with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment; and patient records did not always provide an accurate and contemporaneous record of all care and treatment decisions. However, staff were ‘consistent and proactive’ in empowering patients and supporting them to manage their own health.

Where patients did not always speak English it could not be assured that they were always involved in decisions about care.

Patients treated with kindness

There was also no process in place to collect and review patient feedback. But patients were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and patient’s privacy and dignity were respected.

The report acknowledged the practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs; and patients were able to access care and treatment when required; and the service took complaints and concerns seriously.

But disabled access arrangements required improvement and there was no information relating to how to make a complaint available in the surgery or the website.

Governance and management processes were limited; and processes for the management of risks, issues and performance were ineffective. The service did not act on all appropriate and accurate information. and did not involve patients and external partners in their service; It stated there was a limited focus on continuous improvement and innovation.