Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hayes Town Medical Centre on 22 September 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Ensure the practice improves and responds to the national GP patient survey results in lower scoring areas including responses related to nursing care at the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During our inspection we spoke with eight people using the service, the operations director, the practice manager, two GP's, a practice nurse and three reception staff. The majority of people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the services received. One person said, "the staff are very good, I have my favourite doctor and I'm seeing him today." Another person said, "I'm generally happy with the service." However, some people mentioned they were not always happy with the length of time they had to wait to see a doctor or nurse and one person commented that on one occasion their needs had not been prioritised.

We saw people were given adequate information to make informed decisions about their life style and health and were involved in decisions about their care and treatments. Arrangements were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies and staff had been trained to respond to and effectively manage emergency situations.

Staff working at the service were aware of their responsibilities for safeguarding children and adults using the service and the local arrangements for reporting safeguarding concerns were being followed.

The provider had carried out the necessary checks to ensure staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of service provided and as a result of monitoring improvements had been made to the service where necessary.