We carried out an announced inspection visit on 17 February 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good. Specifically, we found the practice was good in providing: safe, responsive and effective care for all of the population groups it serves.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Where incidents had been identified relating to safety, staff had been made aware of the outcome and action was taken where appropriate, to keep people safe.

• All areas of the practice were visibly clean and where issues had been identified relating to infection control, action had been taken.

• Patients received care according to professional best practice clinical guidelines. The practice had regular information updates, which informed staff about new guidance to ensure they were up to date with best practice.

• The service ensured patients received accessible, individual care, whilst respecting their needs and wishes.

• We found there were positive working relationships between staff and other healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of service.
• Evidence we reviewed demonstrated patients were satisfied with how they were treated and this was with compassion, dignity and respect. It also demonstrated the GPs were good at listening to patients and gave them enough time.
• The practice had an open culture that was effective and encouraged staff to share their views through staff meetings and significant event meetings.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

• The patient participation group (PPG) worked with the practice to provide a voice for the patient and to help develop the service collaboratively. The PPG were also involved with health campaigns for instance diabetes advice and during the flu season promoting vaccinations.
• The practice actively supported ‘Practice Health Champions’ who were volunteers. They work in partnership with the practice to find new ways to improve the patients’ health with healthy eating groups and walking groups.
• The appointment system was effective providing a mix of open access appointments, emergency and routine appointment. Waiting times for routine appointments were no longer than four days on average.
• A translator for the South Asian languages was available in the practice throughout surgery times to support patients with their language needs.

However, we also found an area in which an improvement was needed.

• While the practice did undertake an annual fire safety check, more frequent audits of their systems was needed as was further training of their staff on actions they should take in the event of fire.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Ashwell Medical Centre on 13 February 2019.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

• what we found when we inspected
• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as requires improvement overall. The practice had previously been inspected in February 2015 when it was rated good overall.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services because:

• Patient satisfaction regarding consultations and their involvement in discussions regarding their care and treatment was significantly below local and national averages.
• The numbers of carers identified and supported by the practice was below 1%.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services because:

• Patient satisfaction regarding making and accessing appointments was mixed. Although the practice had introduced improvements to increase access to appointments these still needed to be fully embedded and reviewed for their effectiveness.

These areas affected all population groups so we rated all population groups as requires improvement.

We rated the practice as good for providing safe, effective and well-led services because:

• 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.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• Staff told us that felt supported by the practice, and we saw evidence that staff had been enabled to attain additional skills and qualifications.
• The practice had made active provision to support patients whose first language was not English.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review and improve the identification of patients who acted as primary carers for others.
• Review and improve child immunisation performance.
• Review and improve performance in relation to cervical, breast and bowel screening.
• Continue to improve patient access and the involvement of patients in their own care and treatment.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice