Our inspection of October 2013 found people were not always protected against the risks of potentially unsafe emergency equipment. This was because the provider was not providing effective, safe and appropriate systems to check that all emergency equipment was safe and in good working order.

Following this inspection we requested the provider to send us an action plan detailing how improvements would be made. The action plan we received told us they would ensure all emergency equipment would be checked weekly to ensure all were safe to use and in good working order.

During this inspection we found the provider had implemented a very robust system to audit all emergency and non-emergency equipment used within the practice. This meant people were protected from harm from unsafe, or suitable equipment.

As part of this inspection we carried out a brief tour of one of the branch surgeries located in Staindrop. We found the practice to be clean and well managed.

We talked with three patients and two members of the Patient Reference Group (PRG) and asked about their experiences when visiting the practice. They told us they were very satisfied with the care, support and advice they had received. One patient said "Everyone here is so helpful, I don't mind which doctor I see because they are all good. They always explain things very clearly and they really do care."

Staff we spoke with understood the procedures to protect adults and children from abuse.

We saw the practice was up to date with infection control policies and procedures. When we spoke with staff they had a clear understanding how to reduce the risk of cross infection. The surgery was clean and well maintained.

Staff were provided with support, guidance and training to make sure they were able to carry out their role safely.

We found some medical emergency equipment had been checked, but no records of these checks were kept.

We saw that the general practitioners were following national guidance as well as local Clinical Commissioning Group guidelines to make sure they were using best practice guidance.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woodview Medical Practice on 28 July and 1 August 2016. 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients said they were able to get same day appointments however some patients told us it could be difficult to make appointments. GPs had ‘personal lists’ providing all patients with a named GP and continuity of care.
• 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.

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

Importantly the provider should:

• Ensure that balance checks on controlled drugs were carried out at the frequency as detailed within current standard operating procedure.

• Ensure that a formal process to regularly check medicines were within their expiry date.

We saw one example of outstanding practice:

The practice also provided a teledermatology service (this is the ability to photograph skin lesions and send the images securely to a Consultant Dermatologist to diagnose whether further treatment is necessary or not). This provided care closer to home.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice