Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focused inspection at The River Surgery on 19th July 2016 to check that improvements had been made.

At our previous inspection of 19th October 2015, the practice was rated as requires improvement overall, with requires improvement for safe, effective and well-led. It was rated as good for providing caring and responsive services. As a result of our inspection of 19th October 2015, the practice was issued with a requirement notice for improvement.

Necessary improvements have been made, and the practice is now rated as good.

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

• The repeat prescribing policy had been updated to reflect current systems and practices.

• Infection control training had been provided to all staff.

• There had been a recent infection control audit.

• Staff were aware of lead roles at the practice, and who to go to if they had safeguarding concerns.

• Pre-employment checks were robust and sought to ensure that newly recruited staff were suitable for their roles.

• There were systems to ensure that patients taking high risk medicines were regularly monitored.

• Significant events were consistently recorded and routinely discussed.

• The emergency medicines kit was routinely checked and all medicines in this were in date.

• All staff received an appraisal.

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 focused inspection at The River Surgery on 19th July 2016 to check that improvements had been made.

At our previous inspection of 19th October 2015, the practice was rated as requires improvement overall, with requires improvement for safe, effective and well-led. It was rated as good for providing caring and responsive services. As a result of our inspection of 19th October 2015, the practice was issued with a requirement notice for improvement.

Necessary improvements have been made, and the practice is now rated as good.

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

• The repeat prescribing policy had been updated to reflect current systems and practices.

• Infection control training had been provided to all staff.

• There had been a recent infection control audit.

• Staff were aware of lead roles at the practice, and who to go to if they had safeguarding concerns.

• Pre-employment checks were robust and sought to ensure that newly recruited staff were suitable for their roles.

• There were systems to ensure that patients taking high risk medicines were regularly monitored.

• Significant events were consistently recorded and routinely discussed.

• The emergency medicines kit was routinely checked and all medicines in this were in date.

• All staff received an appraisal.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We found the service to be welcoming with friendly staff. Practice information was displayed for people who used the service, including health promotion, access to support and other available services. Appointments could be made in person at the surgery or by telephone.

We spoke with seven people who all spoke highly of the services provided to them. We also spoke with staff who said they enjoyed working in the practice.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual wishes. One person said, "I've been coming here for a long time and have never had any complaints." Another person said, “The doctors and nurses are very good at listening properly and not fobbing people off.”

We saw that there was a system to ensure repeat prescriptions were available promptly and medicines that were kept at the practice were stored safely.

Staff were supported through appraisal, supervision and regular staff meetings.

The practice had a complaints policy in place. Any dissatisfaction from people who had used the service was treated promptly and appropriately. There were systems in place to ensure that staff members learnt from any complaints in an effort to prevent future occurrences.

We found that space at the premises was restricted and presented some challenges to both staff and patients. However, the provider had made some adaptations to enable people with mobility problems to have equal access.