The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Shepherds Spring Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Cricketers Way, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 5DE (01264) 310777

Provided and run by:
Shepherds Spring Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Shepherds Spring Medical Centre 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 Shepherds Spring Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

18/05/2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced review of Shepherds Spring Medical Centre on 18 May 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Following our previous focussed inspection on 14 November 2019, the practice was rated Good overall but Requires Improvement for providing Well led services.

At this inspection we looked at the following key question:

• Are the services provided at this location well-led?

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Shepherds Spring Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review

During the previous inspection in November 2019 we found that:

  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care but some staff told us they did not feel supported to fulfil the role they had been employed to do.
  • The practice had not ensured all policies were well-circulated or known by all staff.
  • Staff told us that protected time for learning and development was not always given to allow for the completion of expected training.

At this follow up review we found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations. We have amended the rating for this practice accordingly.

The practice is now rated as Good for the provision of Well Led services.

How we carried out the review

Throughout the COVID 19 pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our reviews differently.

This review was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend no time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Requesting evidence from the provider

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we undertook rthis follow up review
  • 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 and Good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • There were systems and processes in place to ensure compliance with requirement to demonstrate good governance.
  • Staff were clear about their responsibilities relating to significant event reporting procedures.
  • The practice was consistent in its approach to sharing information with staff. For example, the plans associated with the completion of staff appraisals, or the awareness of a Whistleblowing policy and the identification of a specific Freedom to Speak Up Guardian.
  • Staff felt that if they raised concerns that they would be appropriately addressed.
  • Oversight of staff training was appropriate to ensure full compliance with practice’s own training requirements.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

14 Nov 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We decided to undertake an announced focused inspection of Shepherds Spring Medical Centre on 14 November 2019 following our annual regulatory review of the information available to us.

This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Are the services provided at this location effective?
  • Are the services provided at this location caring?
  • Are the services provided at this location well-led?

The practice’s annual regulatory review did not indicate that the quality of care had potentially changed in relation to provision of Safe and Responsive services. As a result, the ratings from the practice’s previous inspection from 2014 still stand in those key questions.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service 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 but requires improvement for providing well-led services.

We found that:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice had improved the number of patients who were also carers, but we found the provision of information to support carers was limited.
  • Patients were encouraged to provide feedback in line with the national GP patient survey and the practice’s Friends and Family Test surveys.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care but some staff told us they did not feel supported to fulfil the role they had been employed to do.
  • The practice had not ensured all policies were well-circulated or known by all staff..
  • Staff told us that protected time for learning and development was not always given to allow for the completion of expected training.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Improve access to information to support for carers
  • Review the authorisation process of patient group directions (PGDs).
  • Consider alternative ways to invite constructive patient feedback to support the development of the practice’s services.
  • Continue to improve uptake for cervical screening to ensure the practice’s meets the national target of 80%.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

6 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected this service on 6 November 2014. The inspection was a comprehensive inspection.

The overall rating for this service is good. We found the practice to be good in the effective, caring and well-led domains and good in the safe and responsive domains. We found the practice worked effectively to provide good care to older people, people with long term conditions and people in vulnerable circumstances, families, children and young people, working age people and people experiencing poor mental health

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Patients were kept safe because there were arrangements in place for staff to report and learn from key safety risks. The practice had a system in place for reporting, recording and monitoring significant events over time.
  • The practice had a patient participation group that took an active role in developing and improving patient services.
  • The practice could demonstrate improved outcomes for patients through the use of a range of clinical audits.
  • The partners provided strong and clear leadership which had led to a committed and motivated staff group.
  • The practice was responsive to its different patient groups and patients were overwhelmingly satisfied with the service they received.
  • The results from the practice satisfaction survey showed that 92% of patients said they were very satisfied with the care they received

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

9 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. We asked eight patients if the GP and other staff such as practice nurses explained their care and treatment choices to them in a way they were able to understand. All of the patients we spoke with agreed that they did. This meant that people who use the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them.

Patients' needs were assessed and care and treatment was delivered in line with their individual wishes. One patient told us: 'They accommodate my wishes to see a specific GP who always listens to me when I see them" Another patient told us: "I had a blood test today and the doctor explained why I needed it. The doctor told me to ring for the results but I asked if the results could be sent to me by letter instead and they told me that they would arrange for this to be done'.

We saw that appropriate arrangements were in place that ensured regularly used vaccines were stored appropriately. We saw that the temperature of the fridges that were used to store temperature sensitive medicines were checked daily. We saw evidence that the correct temperature of the fridges was maintained. This meant that medicines were safe to use because they were stored in line with the manufactures guidelines.

We found the provider had systems in place for ensuring health care professionals, including doctors and nurses, were registered with their professional bodies at the time of their recruitment. We also saw evidence that checks were made to ensure they remained on the registers and were eligible to practice.

We looked at how the practice monitored the Quality Outcome Framework (QOF). The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a system that rewards general practice for providing good quality care to their patients, and to help fund work to further improve the quality of health care delivered. The practice manager told us that meetings were held regularly to monitor the practice performance and look at how they could improve the quality of the service delivered to people.