Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woodlands Park Health Centre on 3 December 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good; but was requires improvement for providing caring services. The full comprehensive report on the December 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodlands Park Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 7 September 2017 to review in detail the actions taken by the practice to improve the quality of care.

The practice is rated as good overall including for providing caring services.

Our key findings at this inspection were as follows:

The practice had addressed the issues identified during the previous inspection.

• The latest published National GP Patient Survey showed that patients’ scores for how they were treated with kindness, dignity, respect and compassion had increased.
• The survey showed that scores had mostly improved for how patients felt about being involved in care planning and in involvement in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The practice had implemented an action plan to address the lower scores in the survey.
• CQC comment cards completed by patients were positive about the standard of care received.

• Staff were to receive care navigator training and the practice had been more proactive in identifying carers and giving them information about help available to them.

At our previous inspection on 3 December 2015 we said the provider should make improvements in several areas. We saw at this inspection that improvements had been made;

• Staff had received mandatory training and this was closely monitored using an internal computer software package which provided prompts for the practice manager and staff when training was due.
• There were no longer any risks associated with transporting medicines to the branch surgery as this had closed in May 2017.
• Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s complaints policy.

There were areas where the provider still needed to make improvements. At our previous inspection in December 2015 there was limited evidence that clinical audits were used to improve quality outcomes for patients. At this inspection we saw that there was an audit plan in place and some audits were supplied, however there were no two cycle audits. The audits supplied had no clear aims nor were preparation or planning described.

Therefore the provider should:

• Carry out clearly defined clinical audit which is clearly linked to patient outcomes, monitored for effectiveness and comprises of two cycles to monitor improvements to patient outcomes.

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 Woodlands Park Health Centre on 3 December 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good; but was requires improvement for providing caring services. The full comprehensive report on the December 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodlands Park Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 7 September 2017 to review in detail the actions taken by the practice to improve the quality of care.

The practice is rated as good overall including for providing caring services.

Our key findings at this inspection were as follows:

The practice had addressed the issues identified during the previous inspection.

• The latest published National GP Patient Survey showed that patients’ scores for how they were treated with kindness, dignity, respect and compassion had increased.
• The survey showed that scores had mostly improved for how patients felt about being involved in care planning and in involvement in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The practice had implemented an action plan to address the lower scores in the survey.
• CQC comment cards completed by patients were positive about the standard of care received.

• Staff were to receive care navigator training and the practice had been more proactive in identifying carers and giving them information about help available to them.

At our previous inspection on 3 December 2015 we said the provider should make improvements in several areas. We saw at this inspection that improvements had been made;

• Staff had received mandatory training and this was closely monitored using an internal computer software package which provided prompts for the practice manager and staff when training was due.
• There were no longer any risks associated with transporting medicines to the branch surgery as this had closed in May 2017.
• Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s complaints policy.

There were areas where the provider still needed to make improvements. At our previous inspection in December 2015 there was limited evidence that clinical audits were used to improve quality outcomes for patients. At this inspection we saw that there was an audit plan in place and some audits were supplied, however there were no two cycle audits. The audits supplied had no clear aims nor were preparation or planning described.

Therefore the provider should:

• Carry out clearly defined clinical audit which is clearly linked to patient outcomes, monitored for effectiveness and comprises of two cycles to monitor improvements to patient outcomes.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

At a previous inspection we identified shortfalls in the management of infection risks within the practice. We carried out this inspection to check whether action had been taken to address these concerns. We found that improvements had been made to ensure that patients who used the surgery, and the staff who cared for them, were protected against the risk of catching an infection.

We found that the surgery was clean, tidy, well maintained. We found that infection control policies and procedures had been reviewed, and as a result, infection risks within the practice were reduced.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We saw that staff dealt with enquiries from patients as discretely as possible. One patient told us, “I feel as if I am listened to and given plenty of time.”

Patients we spoke with were complimentary about the care they received. We saw there were system in place to monitor and review people’s care and treatment. Patient told us, “The nurses here are excellent” and “It does everything I need it to do.”

The practice had in place safeguarding policies for both children and vulnerable adults. There was an identified lead clinician and regular discussion between staff about any safeguarding or concerning situations.

The practice was well organised and presented as clean, tidy and generally well maintained. However, processes to reduce the risk of infection were not always in place or adhered to.

Staff were supported to obtain appropriate training. Regular meetings took place to discuss clinical issues and matters relevant to the safe running of the practice. General practitioners and nurses employed within the practice were checked to ensure they had an up to date registration with the appropriate professional body.