This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating January 2016 – Good)

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Teignmouth Medical Practice on 4 September 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• The practice had successfully completed a merger with neighbouring practice, Richmond House Surgery, in the last 12 months. Staff reported that they felt supported by the new practice manager.
• The practice embraced innovation to improve patient care. For example, in using portable echocardiogram monitoring devices to detect irregular heartbeats and pulse rates which could aid diagnosis of heart conditions.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Teignmouth Medical Practice on 12 January 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 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.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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 two areas of outstanding practice, these included;

• Nurses were trained in both asthma and diabetes care. Longer appointments of up to 50 minutes were available for patients with multiple or complex conditions.
• The practice organised an annual educational event for patients with diabetes. All patients diagnosed with diabetes were invited to attend a local community hall where they were and joined by local consultant specialists. The specialists provided the latest information about diabetic care to attendees and offered an open forum for questions. Approximately 80 patients had attended in 2015.

We identified an area where the provider needed to make improvements;

• The practice did not have a hearing aid induction loop. The practice should review facilities for patients with hearing loss to ensure effective communication with them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Patients were very positive about the care they received. We received no negative comments during our conversations. Patients told us they thought the practice was "marvellous" and "all I need" and "very good". Another patient said "I’ve been coming here for many years. In that time I have never experienced a problem.” Another patient said “Top marks! I have no complaints at all."

We were told that staff treated patients with respect, dignity and patients had been involved in the decisions made about their care

Patients told us they could see the doctor they preferred although it meant they sometimes had to wait longer for an appointment. Patients said the appointment system had changed in recent months and was “much better.” Patients said it was easy to make a same day appointment.

All staff knew the correct local safeguarding procedures to follow if abuse was suspected and all had attended safeguarding training.

Patients told us that they always felt safe in the care of the staff. There were appropriate arrangements in place which ensured that staff kept their knowledge and skills up to date. Staff spoke about the supportive environment.

The practice was very organised and well led. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and patients felt able to give feedback about the service they received.