We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr K M Emerson & Partners 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 Dr K M Emerson & Partners, you can give feedback on this service.
Our previous inspection of Dr K M Emerson and partners was carried out in January 2015. At that time the practice was rated Outstanding.
We carried out an announced inspection of Dr K M Emerson and Partners on 24 June 2019.
We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. The decision to inspect was required because our previous inspection had been carried out over four years ago.
This inspection looked at the following key questions: Was the practice providing effective and well-led services. We found the practice had consolidated their provision of care and treatment for patients and the rating of Outstanding had been maintained.
We have rated this practice as outstanding overall.
We did not check whether this practice was providing safe services because our monitoring of the practice indicated no significant change since the last inspection. The rating of Good from the last inspection has been carried forward.
We did not check whether this practice was providing caring services because consistently positive patient feedback and monitoring indicated no change since the last inspection. The rating of Good from the last inspection has been carried forward.
We did not check whether this practice was providing responsive services because patient feedback and monitoring indicated no change since the last inspection. The rating of Outstanding from the last inspection has been carried forward. Data held by the practice showed the practice to be in the top 60 practices in England from the results of the 2018 national GP patient survey.
We rated the practice as good for providing effective services because:
We rated the practice as Outstanding for provision of well-led services because:
These outstanding areas, from the current and previous inspection, benefitted all population groups and so we rated all population groups as outstanding.
We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:
Details of our findings and the evidence supporting the change in rating are set out in the evidence tables.
Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care
We carried out an announced, comprehensive inspection on 14 January 2015.
We visited the practice location of Dr GAM Burnett and Partners at Sonning Common Health Centre, Wood Lane, Sonning Common, Reading, RG4 9SW. Overall the practice is rated as outstanding.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:
However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
The provider should
Chief Inspector of General Practice
Dr GAM Burnett and Partners, also known as Sonning Common Health Centre, is located in purpose built premises in a semi-rural area. It provides primary medical services to just over 8500 registered patients. The practice dispenses prescriptions to approximately one third of its patients.
We visited the practice location at Sonning Common Health Centre, Wood Lane, Sonning Common, Reading, RG4 9SW.
We spoke with 11 patients and 14 staff during the inspection.This was the first inspection since registration.The announced inspection at Sonning Common Health Centre took place on 8 July 2014.
We found the provider was in breach of the regulation, Management of medicines.
The practice operated from premises that were clean and well maintained. Systems were in place to report and learn from incidents to improve patient safety. The policies and procedure used by the service for the management of medicines had been reviewed, but were not always followed. Prescription pads completed by hand were not stored securely which increased the risk of prescriptions being misappropriated. Repeat prescriptions were signed by a GP after collection by the patient. Assurances could not be provided that refrigerated and non-refrigerated medicines were stored within their recommended temperature ranges.
Staff told us if they suspected abuse in children or adults they would raise concerns with the GP. We found staff had received training in safeguarding children but not in safeguarding adults. Emergency procedures were in place to respond to medical emergencies.
Systems were in place to ensure evidence based practice including national and local guidelines were used and monitored through audits. The practice supported patients to adopt healthy lifestyles by facilitating exercise programmes such ‘Health Walks’, cycling club and a gardening project.
The practice nurses were developed in their roles. For example, the lead nurse for diabetes was an advanced nurse practitioner in diabetes education and provided support to patients with diabetes. All staff received regular appraisals.
The practice was caring and compassionate in its approach. We spoke with 11 patients. They were very positive about all aspects of the care they received. This was supported by the national GP survey results for this practice. We also observed staff were respectful in their interactions with patients in a way that preserved their dignity and confidentiality.
The practice understood the different needs of the population it served and had developed services to meet their needs. For example, late evening and fortnightly Saturday morning surgeries were offered. A complaints system was in place to investigate and take action where concerns were identified.
Staff described a supportive team environment to provide a patient centred service. Governance arrangements were in place that ensured patients needs were a priority. Staff told us they were comfortable to raise issues and concerns when they arose and were confident they would be dealt with constructively. However, a whistleblowing policy was not in place.
All the GPs mentioned the practice’s focus on education. All staff had been appraised in the last year. Staff said they had mandatory training updates. For example, in infection control, child safeguarding and basic life support. However, a robust system for recording and monitoring all staff training needs was not in place. The practice were aware of this but had not yet addressed this issue.
The practice considered the needs of older people in all aspects of the delivery of the service. The GPs involved patients and family in discussions before completion of the do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation form. GPs and nurses were aware of what action to take if they judged a patient lacked the mental capacity to give their consent and they acted appropriately.
The practice supported patients with long term conditions to manage their health, care and treatment. The practice nurses were trained and experienced in providing diabetes and asthma care to ensure patients with these long term conditions were regularly reviewed and supported to manage their conditions.
Specific services for mothers, babies, children and young people included weekly antenatal clinics, baby immunisation clinics and baby development clinics. Family planning clinics were offered in the evening to improve access for young people.
The practice had introduced fortnightly Saturday morning surgeries and a weekly late evening surgery for routine appointments, to accommodate the needs of working age people.
The patient participation group was running a campaign to promote a local carers group which highlighted the support carers needed in relation to their own health and well-being.
The practice was working towards the joint Oxfordshire dementia plan to increase awareness and improve identification of patients at risk of dementia.