The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

New Street and Netherton Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

New Street Surgery, 21 New St, Milnsbridge, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD3 4LB (01484) 651622

Provided and run by:
New Street and Netherton Group Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about New Street and Netherton Group Practice 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 New Street and Netherton Group Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

12 January 2024

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced assessment of New Street and Netherton Group Practice on 12 January 2024. The assessment focused on the responsive key question.

Following our previous inspection on 10 January 2019 the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for New Street and Netherton Group Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The service continues to be rated as good for the responsive key question as a result of the findings of this focused assessment. The practice continues to be rated as good overall as this was the rating given at the last comprehensive inspection. The ratings below include the ratings from the last comprehensive inspection.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led - Good

Why we carried out this review

We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers.

We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

How we carried out the review

This assessment was carried out remotely. It did not include a site visit.

The process included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing.
  • Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Reviewing data we hold about the service
  • Seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders

Our findings

We based our judgement of the responsive key question on a combination of:

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

We found that:

  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the work they are doing to maintain and improve the responsiveness of the service for their patient population.
  • The provider organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • People were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Complaints were listened to, managed appropriately and used to improve the quality of care.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr M P Boulton and Dr S K Baddam on 10 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

Our judgement on the quality of care at this service is based 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. The practice was previously inspected by the Care Quality Commission in August 2015 and rated as good overall.

We found that:

  • There were clear systems in place for reporting, recording and learning from significant incidents. Staff told us they felt supported and enabled to raise issues without fear of retribution.
  • There were high levels of staff and patient satisfaction. Staff were proud of the organisation as a place to work and spoke highly of the culture.
  • The practice was a progressive practice and we learned that a number of trainees had remained at the practice, taking up permanent posts upon completion of their studies.
  • Staff told us the leadership team was supportive and approachable.
  • The involvement of other organisations, voluntary services and the local community were integral to how services were planned and ensured that services met patient’s needs.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

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

11 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr M P Boulton and Dr S K Baddam’s practice on 11 August 2015. 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.
  • The majority of risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available 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 supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

There were areas of outstanding practice.

  • A clinic was held in the practice twice a week for those with substance or alcohol misuse related health problems in response to local patient needs. These were conducted by a GP, who had received specialist training, in conjunction with advisors from the local treatment service, Lifeline.
  • Two of the GPs had undertaken specialist training in diabetes so they could initiate all types of injectable therapies for diabetes and provide all diabetes care reducing the need to refer patients to secondary care services.
  • The practice had developed a template to record the assessment of patients over 75 years which included a social assessment as well as a review of their health needs. The assessment was conducted as part of their annual review. The practice was also engaged with a local CCG initiative reviewing patients over 70 who were prescribed more than three medicines. The reviews included compliance with medicines, social history and falls history.

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

Importantly the provider should improve the following areas:

  • There was a process to share medical alerts with staff however there was no record of action taken in response to the alerts.
  • A written Legionella risk assessment had not been completed to evidence that all risks had been taken into account and all appropriate action was being taken to minimise risk.
  • Records of verbal staff references and records of risk assessements relating to DBS checks had not always been completed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice