Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Crich Medical Practice on 23 August 2016 Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• The practice had systems in place to enable staff to effectively report and record significant events. Learning from significant events was reviewed monthly and shared internally and externally.
• Risks to patients and staff were assessed and managed. However, the practice were in the process of confirming hepatitis B imunisation status for some staff as their immunisation record had not been kept up to date in the preceding year.
• Staff delivered care and treatment in line with evidence based guidance and local guidelines. Training had been provided for staff to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to deliver effective care and treatment for patients.
• Feedback from patients was that they were treated with kindness, dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their care.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Complaints were dealt with promptly and the practice demonstrated they were keen to meet with complainants to ensure issues were resolved as quickly as possible.
• Patients said they generally found it easy to make an appointment even though the practice did not offer evening appointments.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Adjustments had been made to the premises to ensure these were suitable for patients with a disability. However, the branch surgeries were in need of updating and this was being planned.
• There was a clear leadership structure which all staff were aware of. Staff told us they felt supported by the lead GP and the practice manager. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, and we heard about examples where the practice had acted on suggestions for improvement.
• The practice worked closely with their patient participation group (PPG) to identify areas for improvement. The practice was responsive to suggestions from their PPG and was working with them to increase patient engagement in the online services.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• To strengthen some risk assessments to ensure that risks to staff and patients are mitigated whilst new practices are being embedded.
• To strengthen recording of staff immunisation status, staff training, and DBS checks.
• To formalise infection control audits and action plans and review progress regularly to ensure that recommendations made are completed. Ensure that planned refurbishment of branch practices meets with infection control standards.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We spoke with six patients of Crich Medical Practice during our inspection. We did this to help us to understand the outcomes and experiences of patients who used the practice. The patients told us that all of the staff at the practice treated them with respect and the GP’s were friendly and approachable. Their comments included, “The GPs give me options and I like that I have some control over my treatment” and, “The Doctors are brilliant.”

We found that patients were involved in their care and treatment which was provided in a way intended to ensure their safety and welfare.

Patients who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Patients we spoke with told us they trusted the GPs and nurses caring for them and felt safe receiving support from all of the staff at the practice.

There was a risk that patients were not always being cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. This was because the provider had not carried out the risk assessments on the suitability of some staff to provide safe and suitable care for patients.

The practice carried out a range of audits to monitor the quality of the service and to learn from any mistakes made. There was a Patient Participation Group at the practice and they were involved in assessing the quality of care patients received using questionnaires.