Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Heath Lane Surgery on 13 January 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good. .

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 and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• 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.
• 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 practice was pro-active in planning for increased future demand on services.

We saw evidence of outstanding practice:

• The practice had innovated in leading in the provision of facilities for kidney dialysis that allowed patients to undergo treatment without the need to attend hospital.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

One compliance inspector visited the practice. We spoke with eight patients. Everyone we spoke with was satisfied with the service they received. Comments patients made included: “Overall it’s a good service.”, “I think we’re very lucky.”, “It’s brilliant.” And “I’m really impressed with the help and communication I’ve had with [their child].”

Patients told us GPs and nurses explained if they needed to do an examination or provide any treatment and asked for the patient’s agreement. One patient told us they had: “Always been consulted in my experience. [Staff checked] to see if I wanted a chaperone; always been consulted.”

We found the service had effective recruitment and selection processes. Patients told us staff were good. Comments included: “People are good. The nurses are good.” and “The staff are lovely.” Children and vulnerable adults were protected from abuse because the service had appropriate systems for identifying and reporting concerns.

Four of the patients we spoke with were members of the patient representative group (PPG). This is a group set up to represent the views of patients and raise concerns or suggestions about the service. The representatives we spoke with told us: “I think we are valued.” “The support we get and the way it works is tops.” and “I’m happy and privileged to be part of the practice team.” We found the service had systems for checking the quality of the service, including taking account of the views of patients and staff.