The practice was inspected in March 2016, just two years after the last inspection. Normal inspection intervals are five years, but the CQC is visiting some practices twice and others not at all.
A report was issued to the practice after two months on 25 May 2016 and we were given just 10 days to reply. Our comments on the original report are on the right.
The CQC took another 5 months to respond to the comments but did not send this for verification before publishing another factually incorrect report. As you can see from the 'merged' file on the right, some criticisms were dropped, like the oxygen and the requirement for Dr Beerstecher to undergo gender reassignment, but the report continued to list factually incorrect information.
On the right you can see the CQC response to our comments in the 'merged' file. We have made further comments on this. It seems there are some issues the CQC may not have received as a lot of comments relate to items sent in an email that was 7Mb large and maybe it was too large and not received. Other items however are plainly untrue, like the opening hours not being displayed on our entrances. There is one item (of the 700+ evidence items we had to provide) that was unclear, a policy was requested for significant events, not a protocol. Even though we sent a template and a BMA advice file, the CQC kept referring to the template as policy and never mentioned they were after a protocol, instead of a policy. Not that any of this is relevant to the care you receive from the practice.
It was clear to us that the CQC had come with an agenda. From the video of the presentation you can see that this was denied, however the merge file on the right revealed that CQC acted after a report from NHS England. We requested the contents of this report that has been kept from us early November 2016. Listen to the last 60 seconds of the credits -- all inspectors of the practice have objected to recordings, it is odd as what would an honest person doing an honest assessment have to hide?
You may remember that NHS England had given notice they were intent on closing the practice in 2014, but this decision was reversed after some patients called them in support of the surgery.
A lot of accusations have been levelled at the doctor, this is the reason for the audio recordings of consultations, to avoid further false accusations. To back up what we say, audio recordings have been made of the day we were visited and these are published on the right.
Would someone that provides poor care or has something to hide record all consultations?
Would someone that has faced false accusations record all consultations?
The CQC has a feedback facility, however feedback is not published and may not be taken into account, the NHS website feedback is probably a better place.
The CQC noticed some patients had not attended for blood tests recommended for certain medications, and advised the way to force patients to comply is to stop their medications under the guise of "it would be unsafe to issue the tablets or inhalers without a check". In reality very little is being achieved by the checking and some patients may decide that the small risk associated with medications is not worth bothering. Dr Beerstecher believes that as long as someone's risk taking behaviour does not affect another person then that should be their right and it is not correct to stop medication to make someone ill so that they are forced to submit to testing and checks they do not want.
The CQC states that not all children are vaccinated. This is plainly wrong as you can see on our financial pages that we have always been paid for reaching the highest target of 90%. You can see on the right 'merge' file that somehow the CQC sticks with their wrong information. We even analysed the information from the NHS where the CQC obtained the nonsense figures, and the warning at the bottom of the file, line 13,889 a long way down, states: "Data submitted by providers against registered practice code is to be published on an annual basis irrespective of data quality concerns."
But even if some parents that do not want to vaccinate their children? Should the practice be penalised for this? What torture suggestion does the CQC have to force parents to bring their children for jabs?
The CQC has commented on many small practices that there is no choice to see a female doctor. The reason for this was explained by Professor Field in an interview that half the population is female.
But what about all the practices that were rated good and outstanding and there is no male nurse available, as half the population is male and they may not want to see a female nurse? So Dr Beerstecher looked on the Office of National Statistics and guess what, 92% of the population is white British, so what about our nurses that are 100% black Caribbean? Lucky we are not Jewish as 99.5% of the population is not, which would be a major potential problem for the CQC.
To resolve the problem Dr Beerstecher was going to undergo gender reassignment so that he could be female on Tuesdays and Thursdays and male on the other days to offer a choice of female GP. Our nurse could become white British on four of the five weekdays.
The CQC has commented that the doctor and nurse are spending too much time on looking after patients and should spend more time on refreshing dates on documents instead. Some of you may remember 'Yes Minister' and their episode of the empty hospital. In practices that have been rated good and outstanding patients cannot get appointments, this is condoned by Professor Field, coincidentally this problem of patients not able to see the doctor also applies to his practice. How can any practice be rated good or outstanding if the patients are not seen, another 'yes minister' situation?
The CQC now says the practice is not well led. However in 2014 with the same management, the same policies, the same building the same staff it was found satisfactory. So what has changed?
Truth is none of the conditions listed by the CQC indicating poor practice applies to our surgery. Link to the list.
The CQC alleges that some of our staff should have had DBS checks, which is completely untrue and against their own guidelines that "CQC does not decide who is eligible for a DBS check or not".
The CQC commented that the infection control training of the nurse was out of date. Truth is there has not been any training available since 2014 and this type of training does not go out of date in a few years. The CQC website does not specify what training is needed, or how often.
The CQC reported that no care plans were drawn up for elderly patients. This scheme bringing additional money was take up by most practices, but Dr Beerstecher thought it was little use and decided to forego the money and make sure there are appointments available instead. The scheme has now been discredited, by the CQC itself.
The CQC has commented that not all staff were trained for Basic Life Support. The Doctor, nurses and reception are all trained for this, but the cleaner who comes in when there are no patients is not. No other practice has been required to do this.
Of course there is an underlying bias from the CQC against small practice expressed in print several times and by the CQC on youtube. UPDATES ON THE NEXT PAGE