A MEDICAL practice caring for more than 11,000 patients has been rated inadequate and placed in special measures.

Inspectors from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) visited the Wibsey and Queensbury Medical Practice back in July.

In a report from that visit, the watchdog raised a number of concerns.

The inadequate rating marks a fall from its last inspection in 2015, when it was rated as being good.

According to the report, the practice has 11,191 patients.

It's based on Fair Road, Wibsey, with a branch location at Queensbury Health Centre.

Both sites were inspected by the CQC.

The report says: "The practice did not have clear systems and processes to keep patients safe.

"The practice did not have adequate systems of governance.

"The care and treatment provided to patients living with some long-term conditions and those experiencing mental health difficulties was below local and national standards."

It also says staff immunisation records were incomplete, a fire risk assessment had not been fully acted upon, health and safety risk assessment activity was "insufficient", arrangements for the management of infection prevention and control - including policy and training - were "absent or insufficient" and there was "inconsistent monitoring of emergency equipment".

The report says: "Emergency medicines, the emergency oxygen and defibrillator were not checked between 20/03/19 to 29/05/19.

"We also saw that vaccine fridges were not consistently checked on a daily basis during the working week, to be assured that temperatures were in range."

Non-clinical staff also told inspectors they had not received any training in identifying sepsis.

The CQC said care and treatment for those with long-term conditions like asthma, COPD and hypertension was "significantly lower" than local and national standards.

This was also the case for people experiencing poor mental health - including people with dementia.

The report says: "Governance structures and leadership were inconsistent in relation to risk assessment activity, clinical meetings and patient safety.

"Not all staff had received an annual appraisal.

"We saw that there was no central oversight of required training (including safeguarding) for clinical staff.

"The provider did not retain documentary evidence to confirm that the registration of clinical staff had been checked and there was no system to regularly monitor professional registration.

"The provider did not have a written policy to verify the identity of locum doctors."

While concerns were raised, inspectors from the CQC found the practice had a "caring and compassionate ethos" and staff felt supported, some quality improvement activity was undertaken and patient feedback regarding the service was "generally positive" and described staff as "caring and professional".

When a service is placed in special measures, it will be inspected again within six months.

The Telegraph & Argus contacted the practice for a response to the report, but it declined to comment.