We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Treeton Medical Centre on 5 December 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

• what we found when we inspected
• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

• The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review and improve procedures for staff to record their involvement when they have been a chaperone.
• Review and improve the recruitment policy and procedures and records to evidence that staffs physical and mental health conditions, which were relevant to their staff ability to carry on, manage or work for the practice were considered as part of the recruitment process.

• Consider provision of specific Sepsis training for non-clinical staff.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Treeton Medical Centre on 16 June 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically we rated the practice as good in providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for all of the population groups.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice offered a responsive and flexible appointment system based on patient feedback. This included a walk-in clinic on a Monday morning, late night opening and a telephone triage system.
• The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) that promoted services offered by the practice and shared health information within the local community.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles, including safeguarding and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Complaints were addressed in a timely manner and the practice endeavoured to resolve complaints to a satisfactory conclusion.
• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• There was a clearly defined leadership structure and all staff felt supported by management. The practice actively sought feedback from staff and patients.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• The practice had relevant and up to date policies and procedures in place and held regular governance meetings.

However, there two areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly, the provider should:

• Make changes in the reception and waiting area so that patients can be afforded privacy and confidentiality when speaking with practice/reception staff.
• Ensure that a paper copy of the Business Contingency Plan is available in the practice in the event of computer failure.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Patients expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

Patients’ needs were assessed and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs. The eight patients we spoke with commented positively about the service they had received. They told us their treatments were clearly explained and raised no concerns about how they were treated. One person told us, “Overall it is an excellent practice.” Another person said, “I have always had a good experience here.”

Patients and staff were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance was available and had been followed. They told us the practice was always clean and well maintained.

Staff received appropriate professional development. We saw staff had accessed various training so they could meet patients’ needs and maintain their qualifications.

The practice had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received. Patients we spoke with told us overall they were very happy with the service they received.