Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Great Barford Surgery on 8 March 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 been trained to provide them with 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• 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, which it acted on.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The area where the provider should make improvement is:

• Continue to work to improve patient satisfaction scores.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During our inspection on 30 July 2013, we found the service to be welcoming with friendly staff. Information was clearly displayed for people using the service, including health promotion, and information about the practice and what was available.

A touch screen facility enabled people to announce their arrival, and clear signage was provided to alert patients when the doctors were ready to see them. An audible sound was also activated for anyone who may not be able to read the sign clearly.

We spoke with seven people using the service, who all said they were happy with the service provided to them. Some people told us they had been unhappy in the past, particularly through the use of regular locum doctors without continuity, but the people who raised this also said they had noticed improvements in recent months. We also spoke with staff who said they enjoyed working in the practice and felt supported by the provider.

We looked at the care records for people and saw that care and treatment was planned to meet people’s needs.

We saw effective systems in place for managing medicines, and we also looked at the training and support systems in place for staff; we saw that staff received regular training to support them in their roles.

We reviewed the quality monitoring systems used within the service and saw these to be effective, with evidence of learning from areas identified through feedback from patients, audits and monitoring.