Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at County Surgery on 12 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 and were positive regarding open access surgery on Monday and Fridays.
• 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 provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

There were two areas where the provider should make improvements:

• The practice should review the chaperone policy to ensure it reflects GMC guidelines and the practice’s own current chaperoning arrangements.

• The practice should formalise infection control arrangements to ensure that audits are carried out regularly.

• The practice should consider ways to improve the patient experience in some areas in response to the national patient survey results.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We spoke with six patients and six staff. Patients were provided with appropriate information in order to ensure that they could make informed choices. Patients could choose to see their preferred doctor for some appointments. Patients expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One patient told us, "The doctors do not rush me, I know they have a set time to meet with patients. They don't clock-watch. They allow me time to ask questions and discuss my diagnosis."

We found that staff received training which supported them to identify and report any concerns about potential harm or abuse. One patient said they felt safe at the practice and were happy to see the female doctor. The practice cooperated and worked collaboratively with other agencies about safeguarding issues. We found the service being led effectively to support staff. We saw that complaints were monitored, and the findings from audits ensured action was taken to protect patients from risks associated with unsafe care, treatment and support. One patient from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) felt the group was listened to and had made a positive difference to the running of the practice. They had recently purchased a defibrillator for the practice which was now available in case of a patient emergency.