This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 06/08/2015 – 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 living with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr David Shurmer on 29 March 2018 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.

• Patient survey results were significantly better than CCG and national averages which reflected the personalised and dedicated service provided by the practice.

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 Dr David Shurmer on 27 May 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

We found the practice to be good for providing caring, safe, effective, well-led and responsive services. It was also rated as good for providing services for all population groups.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.

• Risks to patients were assessed and managed, including those relating to recruitment checks.

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.

• 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. Complaints would be addressed in a timely manner and the practice endeavoured to resolve complaints to a satisfactory conclusion.

• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice