This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating March 2016 – 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 Ampthill Practice on 3 October 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.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• Leaders at all levels were visible and approachable. They worked closely with staff and others to make sure they prioritised compassionate and inclusive leadership.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review and continue to work to improve uptake of childhood immunisations for the benefit of that population group.
• Review and continue to work to improve uptake of its cervical screening programme for the benefit of eligible patients.
• Review and continue to work to improve uptake of its breast and bowel cancer screening programmes for the benefit of eligible patients.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief 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 an announced comprehensive inspection at Ampthill Practice on 14 January 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
• The practice had been involved with Clinical Commissioning Group pilot schemes that had been rolled out within the wider CCG area including the care co-ordinator and rapid response GP initiative.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Ensure that copies of the legionella testing certificate are held at the practice.

• Ensure that chaperone and interpreting services are advertised within the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We spoke with four patients and the practice manager. We also observed staff communication with patients and checked randomly chosen patients’ records.

All the patients we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with their treatment. They told us staff listened to them and ensured that their privacy and dignity was respected. We noted that staff spoke additional languages such as Bengali, Romanian, Italian to communicate effectively with patients. The practice also had arrangements in place to ensure that an interpreter was available for patients who did not speak English.

Information relating to patients' health records including their medical history and the medicines prescribed were maintained and regularly updated. There were policies and guidelines relating about handling information and the practice manager confirmed that all staff had read and signed them.

Patients knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy about the service. Complaints forms were available to patients but information about the complaint procedure was not displayed in the waiting area.