This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating 09/07/15 – Good)

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Albany House Surgery on 29 November 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for recording, reporting and learning from significant events. The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practices antibiotic and hypnotic prescribing were higher than local and national averages, however the practice was routinely reviewing the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided to ensure that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support effective governance.
• Results from the national GP patient survey revealed a high level of patient satisfaction about the care given at the practice. For example, 98% of patients stated that during their last GP appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment and 99% stated that during their last GP appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to.
• Staff involved treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The practice responded to complaints in a timely and open manner.
• The leadership, governance and culture were used to drive and improve the delivery of its service. All staff were involved in the development of the practice and were proud of their achievements.
• The results from the national GP patient survey evidenced high satisfaction rates for patients in relation to kindness, respect and compassion. On the day of inspection, patients told us that the practice was patient-centred and family orientated. All of the 40 patient comment cards were overwhelmingly positive about the quality of care patients received.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Continue to monitor and review the uptake for cervical screening.
• Continue to review and monitor prescribing in line with Quality Outcome Framework and best practice guidelines.
• Continue to keep the exception reporting rates under review to ensure that patients are receiving the most appropriate treatment.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Albany House Surgery on 9 July 2015. Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people living in vulnerable circumstances, and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings were as follows:

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
• The practice was proactive in helping people with long term conditions to manage their health and had arrangements in place to make sure their health was monitored regularly.
• The practice had comprehensive systems for monitoring and maintaining the safety of the practice and the care and treatment they provided to their patients.
• The practice was clean and hygienic and had arrangements in place for reducing the risks from healthcare associated infections.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During our inspection we spoke with eight patients and seven members of staff.

When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to. One patient told us,: "They tell me what they recommend and why so that is OK with me". We found that when minor surgery had been carried out that the doctor had obtained written consent from the patients before the surgery had commenced.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. The patients we spoke with provided positive feedback about their care. A patient said: "They have been really good. It's a good standard of care". Patients received their medicines when they needed them and their medicines were regularly reviewed.

Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from harm.

Patients were cared for in premises that were well maintained to ensure a safe environment for patients visits.

The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system for regularly obtaining opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by the practice staff.