Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (The practice was previously inspected in September 2015– At that time it was overall rated as Good.)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Churchfield Practice on 18 December 2017 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• 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.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• There were routine and urgent appointments easily available and patients were able to access care when they needed it.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Health Centre, Dr Garrod on 24 September 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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 their GP with urgent appointments available the same day.
• 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

• The practice should form a patient participation group to seek feedback from patients.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice recognised the needs of their population and had links with the local food bank. They provided food vouchers to patients in need and held food boxes to give out provisions when necessary.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

For this inspection we visited The Medical Centre and the branch location of St Breward. We spoke with patients who were visiting both surgeries. We also spoke with a number of patients over the telephone in order to ask for their view about the services they had received.

Patients were happy with the services received from the provider and surgery staff. Comments included “It is really easy to get an appointment. All of the staff are very accommodating, nothing is too much trouble”. Another patient said “The GP has been my lifeline. He was prompt to diagnose my condition and the treatment prescribed has brought my illness under control”.

Measures were in place to manage infection control. The surgery buildings were generally well maintained.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff had the skills to meet the needs of the patients and their performance was monitored.

There were some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and patients felt able to give feedback about the service they had received. However, at the time of our inspection a record of the audit of medicines was not in place.