Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Park House on 11 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Park House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 27 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 11 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice rating remains good and is unchanged following this inspection.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had ensured procedures were in place for the proper and safe management of medicines. A controlled drugs register, appropriate vaccination stock control and audit were in place along with a procedure for monitoring and controlling the stock of other medicines.

• The practice had reviewed its processes to enable learning from significant events to be shared with all the practice team and documented.

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 Park House 11 November 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.

• However, we could find no evidence that learning from significant events was being shared amongst staff, although we were assured by staff that discussions had taken place.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

• The arrangements for managing medicines, including emergency medicines, controlled drugs and vaccines, in the practice did not keep patients safe.

• 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.

• All patients we spoke with and members of the Patient Participation Group comment favourably about the ‘open access’ appointment system operated by the practice.

• 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 achieved high scores in the national GP patient survey in relation to access to the service and availability of GPs.

• 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 must make improvement are:

• The practice must ensure the proper and safe management of medicines to ensure it holds a controlled drugs register,vaccination stock control and audit was not effective nor was stock control of other medicines.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Review its processes to enable learning from significant events to be shared with all the practice team and documented.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice