Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Clements Surgery on the 11 October 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice had extended its opening hours on a Saturday morning to include not only bookable appointments but ten walk-in slots, plus the opportunity for patients to have their telephone calls returned on a Saturday morning which was especially useful for working age patients.  As a result of this the practice had reduced its accident and emergency admission rates by 15%. 

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Patients that we spoke with were very complimentary about the service and told us their needs were met. One person said that staff were, “Friendly and always ready to help or answer your questions.” When we spoke with staff, attended a meeting and observed staff interacting with the patients, we saw that staff listened to patients and ensured they took a patient centred approach to meeting their individual care and welfare needs.

There were appropriate systems in place to ensure that staff sought consent from patients at appropriate times and this was recorded.

The premises were well designed and provided a safe environment because regular maintenance checks such as electrical, security and fire safety were in place. Although staff training in fire procedures had not been provided for some time, this was booked and due to take place in the near future.

Although no new staff had been recruited in the last eighteen months, there was a clear and appropriate recruitment policy in place. The policy required a review because it was out of date.

The practice used several methods for seeking feedback from patients to help make on-going improvements to the service they offered. They also monitored the quality of care that was provided to ensure that it was effectively meeting patients needs. This was done through regular clinical and staff meetings, monitoring complaints and incidents and completing quality checks on the care that was provided.