Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr M A Bradley (Newbold Surgery) on 12 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an effective system in place for the reporting and recording of significant events. Learning was applied from events to enhance the delivery of safe care to patients.

• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
• A programme of clinical audit reviewed care and ensured actions were implemented to enhance outcomes for patients.
• The practice worked with members of the wider health and social care team to keep vulnerable patients safe. However, they did not participate in regular multi-disciplinary team meetings to plan and co-ordinate patient care collaboratively.
• The practice had an effective appraisal system in place and was committed to staff training and development. The practice team had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver high quality care and treatment.
• Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Patients provided positive views on their experience in making an appointment to see a GP or nurse. The practice offered a range of appointment options including pre-bookable routine, urgent, and telephone consultations each day. Longer appointments were available for those patients with more complex needs.
• The practice had good facilities and was well-equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Some adjustments had been made within the premises to ensure these were easily accessed by patients with a disability.
• There was a clear leadership structure in place and the practice had a governance framework which supported the delivery of good quality care. Regular practice meetings occurred, and staff said that GPs and managers were approachable and always had time to talk with them.
• The partnership had a clear vision for the future of the service, and were proactively engaged with their CCG in order to progress this.
• The practice had an open and transparent approach when dealing with complaints. Information about how to complain was available, and improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of any complaints received.
• The practice analysed and acted on feedback received from patients in conjunction with their patient participation group (PPG). There was clear evidence that the practice aimed to address patient feedback and continually improve their service provision.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Review the monitoring arrangements for the distribution of blank prescriptions within the practice.
• Review practice staff attendance at the fortnightly multi-disciplinary team meetings with community health and social care staff.
• Review the availability of clinical meeting minutes for all clinicians within the practice.
• Continue to increase the uptake of annual health reviews for patients with a learning disability, and strengthen the use of coding in this group to ensure the register is correct. 

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We spoke with seven patients of Dr MA Bradley’s surgery during our inspection. We did this to help us to understand the outcomes and experiences of patients who used the practice. All of the patients we spoke with were very happy with their care and gave particular praise to the time and attention they received from the GP’s. Their comments included, “I’ve had lots of support from the staff even the receptionists who always do what they say, even making sure a GP calls me back” and, “I like that I can see my own GP so I don’t have to explain everything each time I come.”

We found that patients were involved in their care and treatment which was provided in a way intended to ensure their safety and welfare.

Patients who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Patients we spoke with told us they trusted the GPs and Nurses caring for them and felt safe receiving support from all of the staff at the practice.

Patients were cared for, or supported by, suitably skilled and experienced staff. However there were no robust arrangements to ensure that clinical staff were registered with professional bodies for the entirety of their employment.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.