111 Canterbury Road
Sittingbourne
Kent
ME10 4JA
01795 - 423300

Streetmap.co.uk

Canterbury Road Surgery

It is easy to be dazzled by snazzy face value ratings.

There are a number of sites, listed here, however see the 'health warning' below.

It is obligatory to display the CQC rating from April 2015


The CQC has found the practice

Inadequate in 2016

See the new CQC page on our site

Data Health Warning

NHS.UK
You would think the NHS and other government  sites would provide objective and correct information, right?

Well, on the right is the display of the NHS.UK site on the 31st December 2014.

As you can see, we have allegedly a 99.4% satisfaction rating for patients being treated with care and concern. This is rated as 'OK', just like the chestnuts at 81.7%.

However, the Faversham Health Centre is rated as 'GOOD' with a score of 95.3%.

Call me dim, but is 99.4 not more than 95.3? And should that not be marked as 'GOOD' too?

Of course, neither our score or any of the others is actually correct. These data are taken from the GP patient survey and they state that we had a 99% rating for this (69% very good, 30% good and 1% neither good nor poor) and the Faversham Health centre had 93% (with 55% very good and 38% good).

11 months on, the quality of the data has deteriorated further, now alleging a 70% satisfaction, rated red. See the email chain in the file on the right top of this page.

CARE QUALITY COMMISSION
This is led by two professors. CQC have designed an 'intelligent' rating system to decide which practices to inspect first.

We are rated with three risk warnings, for prescribing too many
antibiotics,  not vaccinating patients and for not enough patients seeing their preferred GP.


The antibiotic rating is for prescribing too many 'serious' antibiotics, that should be reserved for serious infections. As you can see we prescribe 79 times for 4287 ASTRO-PU's, which is a 'risk' and a neighbouring practice prescribes 477 for 15429 ASTRO-PU's (they have more patients) which is rated OK.

This gives us 79/4287 = 0.018 antibiotic per ASTRO-PU (18 per 1,000) and the neighbours 477/15429 = 0.031 antibiotic per ASTRO-PU (31 per 1,000).

I must have gone to a different school to the professors as I think that 18 is less than 31, so how can it be that we are rated as prescribing too much?


Then we are rated as
not enough patients receiving the flu jab, CQC says only 33% of the patients were given this. However the Information Commissioner's website shows we gave 100% for people with COPD, 93% for diabetes, 88% for stroke, and 100% for heart disease. Overall this makes 95% of the patients that wanted the vaccine, the others we could not get hold of.


Finally, how come
not enough people see the GP of their choice?

There is only one GP working at our practice and he only has one or two weeks holiday per year.

So just by sheer time, 50 out of 52 weeks (96% of the time) you will see the same GP.
How can the CQC say this is much less than 38% of the time?

It seems you have to be a professor and live on planet CQC, then you can just miss that the GP patient survey has three questions: 'YES', 'NO' and 'THERE IS ONLY ONE GP'.

So, if you ignore the third question like the CQC has, then (surprise surprise) the 7 out of 31 patients (23%) who were so confused by the poorly designed questionnaire they answered it 'yes'. Six of these 31 answered the question how often they actually saw their preferred GP. This value has been suppressed in the GPPS (!large file >200Mb) weighted file, but it clearly presents a risk to the CQC.

Yes, the CQC could have looked at the 'unweighted' GPPS file (!large 97Mb), and could have seen that 81% of the people confused by the questionnaire actually saw their preferred GP compared to the England averages of 44%. Again, I am not a professor but I think 81 is more than 44.

My advice: if you want to keep your marbles do not become a professor working for the CQC.