The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Mill Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

279-281 Mill Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB1 3DG (01223) 247812

Provided and run by:
Dr Peter Niemczuk

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mill Road Surgery on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Mill Road Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

26 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Mill Road Surgery on 26 February 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

17 October 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Mill Road Surgery on 31 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good with a rating of requires improvement for providing effective services. We then carried out an announced focussed inspection on 17 October 2017 to confirm that the practice had made improvements on the recommendations that we identified in our previous inspection on 31 October 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those recommendations.

The reports on the 31 October 2016 and 17 October 2017 inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mill Road Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Overall the practice remains rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice used the information collected for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and performance against national screening programs to monitor outcomes for patients. The most recent published results showed that the practice had achieved 96% of the total number of points available, with 7% exception reporting. (QOF is a system intended to improve the quality of general practice and reward good practice. Exception reporting is the removal of patients from QOF calculations where, for example, the patients decline or do not respond to invitations to attend a review of their condition or when a medicine is not appropriate).
  • Data showed the practice performed lower than local and national averages for bowel and breast cancer screening rates.
  • Cervical screening rates were above local and national averages, as was exception reporting for this indicator.
  • The practice’s performance on child immunisations had not improved; however, the practice maintained records on the patients that had not attended and shared information with the local health visiting team.
  • There was a comprehensive monitoring system of patients taking high risk medicines at the practice. Patients received the appropriate monitoring required with high risk medicines. A database for blood tests and reviews was maintained by the practice manager who reviewed and discussed this with the GPs on a regular basis.
  • The practice had reviewed the coding processes and services available for carers. The practice’s computer system alerted GPs if a patient was also a carer. The practice had identified 88 patients as carers (1.5% of the practice list). This was an increase from 18 patients at our inspection on 31 October 2016. Written information was available in the waiting room to direct carers to the various avenues of support available to them. One of the receptionists had been made a carers champion who provided additional training for the reception team and engaged with the local carer’s trust.

There was one area where the provider should make improvements:

  • Explore further opportunities to support an increase in cancer screening rates and a decrease in exception reporting rates for cervical screening.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

31 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Mill Road Surgery and its branch surgery in Cherry Hinton on 31 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was generally positive. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Data from the National GP Patient Survey published in July 2016 showed that patients rated the practice mostly in line with others for all aspects of care.
  • 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 found it easy to make an appointment with a GP, however there was not always continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available on 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 well supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The practice supported clinical and lead staff by providing externally led coaching and mentoring for staff, to aid revalidation and to support staff in their development. This was funded by the practice and staff we spoke with commented this was very useful.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The area where the provider should make an improvement is:

  • Ensure that clinicians work to a protocol when undertaking high risk medicine reviews.
  • Ensure that carers are proactively identified.
  • Continue to monitor and implement improvement plans around QOF performance.
  • Continue to monitor and implement improvement plans around cancer screening.
  • Continue to monitor and implement improvement plans around child immunisations.

We saw several elements of outstanding practice:

  • The practice employed a counsellor one day a week so that those patients requiring these services had direct access. The counsellor explained that by the practice employing them directly, patients had better access and more time with a professional, an hour per session in this case with up to 18 sessions per patient, to allow them to better address their needs. We saw data that indicated that patients had benefitted from this service with improvement outcomes at the end of treatment.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice