Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Claremont Surgery, 2 Cookham Road, Maidenhead.

Claremont Surgery in 2 Cookham Road, Maidenhead is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning services, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 2nd March 2017

Claremont Surgery is managed by Claremont Surgery.

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2017-03-02
    Last Published 2017-03-02

Local Authority:

    Windsor and Maidenhead

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

28th November 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Claremont Surgery, also known as Claremont & Holyport Practice, on 28 November 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 for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed through audits, benchmarking and learning from feedback.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients reported through comment cards 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns. The practice proactively recorded informal complaints to identify trends that could help improve the service.
  • Appointments were available to meet the needs of the local population. This included early morning, evening and telephone appointments and weekend appointments through participation in a local seven-day access scheme.
  • There was a clear leadership structure that supported staff to develop professionally and valued contribution, suggestions and innovation. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • Extensive in-house services were available for patients who experienced substance misuse. This included weekly GP-led opiate substitute prescribing clinics and nurse-led bloodborne virus clinics. Clinical staff had undertaken specialist training to provide services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

 

 

Latest Additions: