Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Church Lane Medical Centre on 4 February 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive services and for being well led. It was also good for providing services for the older people and families, children and younger people.

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

• 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.

• People told us they were treated with professionalism and respect, and that the practice responded well to patients that were visiting the area for patient care and support.

• Incidents and complaints were appropriately investigated and responded to.

• 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.

• The practice had an effective governance system in place, was well organised and actively sought to learn from performance data, complaints, incidents and feedback.

• The practice showed a patient centred approach to delivering care and treatment.

The practice was proactive in improving health and access to services and engaged with other health and social care agencies to improve access and patients health.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

This inspection was carried out to check if improvements had been made to address concerns identified in September 2013. During the inspection we looked at the various records the provider held relating to the management and monitoring of the service. We found that the provider had systems in place to review and monitor practice which enabled them to identify if the service delivered to patients was effective and if any improvements were needed.

We did not speak with any patients during this inspection.

We spoke with five patients who told us the GP gave them time to ask questions about their treatment before they made a decision. They said they were informed of the risks, benefits and alternative options prior to treatment. One patient told us, “The doctor always explains to me what treatment I need and then asks me for consent.”

Patients we spoke with were complimentary about the standard of care they had received at the practice. One patient told us: "I've always been sorted and always been satisfied with the care given to me." Another patient said: "I have always been happy with my treatments."

Patients were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. One patient told us, “It is really clean here.” Another patient said, “This place is always spotless.”

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Medicines were prescribed appropriately.

We spoke with five members of staff. They told us they felt supported in relation to their responsibilities for delivering care and treatment to their patients. One staff member told us, “We do lots of training here and once we have done our induction course the practice manager makes sure that we keep up to date with all our essential training.”

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received. This was because the provider had not carried out effective decision making in the management of risks to health, welfare and safety.