All inspections: Nuffield House Doctors Surgery

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Nuffield House Doctors 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 Nuffield House Doctors Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

We carried out an announced inspection at Nuffield Doctors Surgery on 15 November 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 12 October 2020, the practice was rated requires improvement overall. Specifically, they were rated requires improvement for safe, caring and long-term conditions. We rated the key questions of effective, responsive, and well-led as good. We issued a requirement notice at this inspection. However, we took them out of special measures in recognition of the significant improvements they had made to the quality of care provided by this service.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a comprehensive inspection to follow up on the breaches of the regulations identified at the last inspection, other areas where the practice was told should be improved, and to re-rate the practice.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic the 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 inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of 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.
Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing the findings with the provider.
Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
Requesting evidence from the provider.
A short site visit.

Our findings

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.

We found that:

The breaches found in the previous inspection had been complied with and actioned. The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
Diabetic patients were identified, and their treatment and monitoring was well managed.
Patients prescribed high risk medicines had been reviewed regularly and monitoring was well documented.
Prescribing guidelines were being followed and processes to monitor prescribing had been improved throughout the practice.
Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. The patient records we reviewed remotely showed care pathways and protocols were well managed and followed.
Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care. This was explained to us when we spoke with patients when we visited the practice.
The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment throughout the pandemic in a timely way.
The way the practice managed, promoted, and delivered high-quality, person-centre care. This was seen in the numerous improvements undertaken since the previous inspection.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

Continue to improve the effectiveness of their two weeks wait process.
Continue to improve the areas of negative variations of patient satisfaction in the GP patient survey.

We found an area of outstanding practice:

The provider had pro-actively sought out care and treatment opportunities to improve the quality of services delivered to their patients throughout the Covid-19 restrictions. Other than for a period of one week, the practice remained open to patients so that they could attend the surgery in person, to receive care and treatment and to book appointments. They also introduced extra communication measures to keep in touch with care homes, domiciliary, and social care to provide a person-centred continuous service. This initiative resulted in the practice being awarded a ‘Hidden Heroes’ award for outstanding performance during the Covid-19 pandemic.

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on 12 October 2020. This inspection was to follow up on breaches of regulations identified at a previous inspection on 4 November 2019 and to provide new ratings for the practice.

We took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering how we carried out this inspection. We therefore undertook some of the inspection processes remotely and spent less time on site. We conducted staff interviews between 5 October and 8 October 2020 and carried out a site visit on 12 October 2020.

At the previous comprehensive inspection of 4 November 2019, the practice was rated as inadequate overall and placed into special measures. Safe and effective were rated as requires improvement and caring, responsive and well-led were rated as inadequate. A warning notice was issued in respect of the governance at the practice.

We had scheduled an inspection to follow up on the warning notice earlier this year although this was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we followed up on the warning notice at this inspection. The provider has met the requirements of this warning notice.

There have been five previous inspections of this practice, four of which were comprehensive inspections where ratings were awarded and one, a focused inspection. The focused inspection was carried out to ensure compliance with a warning notice that was served following the 2017 inspection. The focused inspection was not rated.

The previous inspection history is as follows:-

Comprehensive inspection on 27 October 2016. The practice was rated as required improvement overall, with safe, effective and well-led rated as requires improvement.
Follow-up comprehensive inspection on 8 August 2017 and 5 September 2017. The practice was rated as inadequate overall and placed into special measures for a period of six months. The practice was issued with a warning notice.
Focused inspection on 20 March 2018. The practice had complied with the warning notice.
Comprehensive inspection on 21 May 2018. The practice was rated as requires improvement, with effective, caring, responsive and well-led rated as requires improvement.
Comprehensive inspection on 29 April 2019. The practice was rate as requires improvement overall with well-led rated as inadequate.

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 requires improvement overall.

We rated the practice requires improvement for people with long-term conditions because:

Not all patients with diabetes were identified and coded on systems to enable treatment and monitoring.

We rated the practice requires improvement for safe because:

Not all patients prescribed high risk medicines were being monitored.
We found instances where changes to prescribing guidelines had not been incorporated into prescribing practice.

We rated the practice requires improvement for caring because:

The practice needed to continue to embed improvements in patient satisfaction into routine systems.

The provider must:

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

The provider should:

Embed improvements made in respect of care and access patient survey data into the day to day running of the practice.
Continue to identify patients on the practice list who are carers.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by this service.

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on 4 November 2019. This inspection was to follow up on breaches of regulations identified at a previous inspection on 29 April 2019 and to provide new ratings for the practice.

There have been four previous inspections of this practice, three of which were comprehensive inspections where ratings were awarded and one, a focused inspection. The focused inspection was carried out to ensure compliance with a warning notice that was served following the 2017 inspection. The focused inspection was not rated.

We initially carried out a comprehensive inspection on 27 October 2016. At this time, the practice was rated as required improvement overall, with safe, effective and well-led rated as requires improvement. A follow-up comprehensive inspection was undertaken on 8 August 2017 and 5 September 2017. At this inspection the practice was rated as inadequate overall and placed into special measures for a period of six months. The practice was issued with a warning notice.

On 20 March 2018, we carried out a focused inspection to check that the practice had made the necessary improvements required, as highlighted in the warning notice. We found that they had complied with the warning notice.

We then carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 21 May 2018. This was to check that the practice had made improvements as identified in our previous inspection and to re-rate all key questions and population groups. At this inspection, the practice was rated as requires improvement, with effective, caring, responsive and well-led rated as requires improvement. We carried out a further comprehensive inspection on 29 April 2019. At this inspection, the practice was rate as requires improvement overall with well-led rated as inadequate.

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 inadequate overall.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

There were not effective processes to learn from significant events and so unsafe practices reoccurred.
Sufficient action had not been taken to improve antibiotic prescribing. Performance for prescribing indicators had been below average or tending towards below average for a number of years.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

The practice is rated as requires improvement for providing effective treatment for people with long-term conditions as patients with diabetes were not regularly having their blood pressure checked. This area of underperformance had been identified at four previous inspections.
The practice is rated as requires improvement for working age patients. This is because performance was below average for cervical screening and the number of cancer cases treated which resulted from a two week wait referral.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing caring services because:

Patient feedback was below average in respect of the care and treatment provided by the clinical and non-clinical staff. In some indicators, performance had deteriorated.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing responsive services because:

Patients continued to raise concerns about accessing appointments and getting through on the phone. In some indicators, performance had deteriorated.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing well-led services because:

There had been insufficient improvement in areas previously and persistently identified by inspectors.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on 29 April 2019. This inspection was to follow up on breaches of regulations identified at a previous inspection on 21 May 2018 and to provide new ratings for the practice.

There have been four previous inspections of this practice, three of which were comprehensive inspections where ratings were awarded and one, a focused inspection. The focused inspection was carried out to ensure compliance with a warning notice that was served following the 2017 inspection. The focused inspection was not rated.

We initially carried out a comprehensive inspection on 27 October 2016. At this time, the practice was rated as required improvement overall, with safe, effective and well-led rated as requires improvement. A follow-up comprehensive inspection was undertaken on 8 August 2017 and 5 September 2017. At this inspection the practice was rated as inadequate overall and placed into special measures for a period of six months. The practice was issued with a warning notice.

On 20 March 2018, we carried out a focused inspection to check that the practice had made the necessary improvements required, as highlighted in the warning notice. We found that they had complied with the warning notice.

We then carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 21 May 2018. This was to check that the practice had made improvements as identified in our previous inspection and to re-rate all key questions and population groups. At this inspection, the practice was rated as requires improvement, with effective, caring, responsive and well-led rated as requires improvement.

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 requires improvement overall.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

Sufficient action had not been taken to improve antibiotic prescribing. Performance for prescribing indicators had been below average or tending towards below average for a number of years.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

The practice is rated as requires improvement for providing effective treatment for people with long-term conditions as patients with diabetes were not regularly having their blood pressure checked. This area of underperformance had been identified at three previous inspections.
The practice is rated as requires improvement for working age patients. This is because performance was below average for reviewing patients who have been diagnosed with cancer and the number of cancer cases treated which resulted from a two week wait referral.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services because:

Patient feedback was below average in respect of the care and treatment provided by the clinical and non-clinical staff.
Whilst more carers had been identified than our previous inspections, this remained below 1% of the practice population.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services because:

Patients continued to raise concerns about accessing appointments and getting through on the phone.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing well-led services because:

There had been insufficient improvement in areas previously and persistently identified by inspectors.

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.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

Consider recording and discuss incidents that occurred in relation to the vaccine fridges as significant events.
Review and improve data relating to cancer detection rates following a two-week wait referral.
Continue to identify patients who are carers.
Periodically review clinician’s indemnities to ensure subscriptions are up to date.

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

This practice is rated as requires improvement overall. (The previous overall ratings of the practice are, requires improvement on 27 October 2016 and inadequate on 21 November 2017).

There have been three previous inspections of this practice, two of which were comprehensive inspections where ratings were awarded and one, a focused inspection. The focused inspection was carried out to ensure compliance with a warning notice that was served following the 2017 inspection. The focused inspection was not rated.

We initially carried out a comprehensive inspection on 27 October 2016. At this time, the practice was rated as required improvement overall, with safe, effective and well-led rated as requires improvement.

A follow-up comprehensive inspection was undertaken on 8 August 2017 and 5 September 2017. At this inspection the practice was rated as inadequate overall and placed into special measures for a period of six months. The practice was issued with a warning notice.

On 20 March 2018, we then carried out a focused inspection to check that the practice had made the necessary improvements required, as highlighted in the warning notice. We found that they had complied with the warning notice.

We then carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on 21 May 2018. This was to check that the practice had made improvements as identified in our previous inspection and to re-rate all key questions and population groups.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Requires improvement

Are services caring? – Requires improvement

Are services responsive? – Requires improvement

Are services well-led? Requires improvement

At this inspection we found:

Governance process had improved: partners, clinicians and management staff had lead roles and policies had been updated. There were effective information cascades and staff knew who to go to if they had a concern.
Patients taking high risk medicines were being reviewed before a repeat prescription was issued.
Prescribing data was higher than the local and national averages. The practice was aware and had taken steps to improve.
There was now an up to date infection control policy. Staff had been trained in infection control and regular audits were taking place. There was a COSHH risk assessment.
There was oversight of training requirements and recruitment checks.
There were effective systems to manage MHRA and other alerts that may affect patient safety.
The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
There was a weekly ward round at a local care home by the practice’s GP medicine lead.
There continued to be a low number of carers identified. Carers were directed to the Care Navigator who could provide advice and assistance of a non-clinical nature.
Systems to share information with other healthcare professionals were regular and effective.
The practice had implemented a revised policy to recall patients to their health checks; however, data indicated limited improvement in relation to exception reporting.
Unverified data for 2017/18 indicted that here had been some deterioration in performance in two mental health indicators and one diabetes indicator.
Clinical audits were being completed and were used to improve performance where identified.
All staff received an appraisal in the last year. Staff praised the changes that had been made.
Prescription stationery was stored securely and tracked as it was distributed.
Learning disabilities checks were being completed.
Complaints were effectively handled but the record keeping required improvement.
Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
Feedback from the GP patient survey indicated that patients continued to experience difficulty getting through on the phone and accessing appointments. Action had been taken with a view to making improvements.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations 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:

Continue to take steps to review antibiotic prescribing with a view to making improvements.
Identify more patients who are carers.
Improve the documenting of complaints received and action taken, to ensure there is a clear audit trail including replies to complainants and the action taken.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by this service.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield House Doctors Surgery over two days, on 8th August 2017 and 5th September 2017. The overall rating for the practice was inadequate. The full comprehensive report on the 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Following that inspection, the practice was served with a warning notice in respect of the governance at the practice.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 20th March 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection in 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

We found that the practice had met the requirements of the warning notice.

Our key findings were as follows:

There were now effective systems to assess and monitor infection control. An audit had been completed which included an action plan. Staff were aware of the infection control principles that were relevant to their role.
GP locums were now being appropriately engaged. There was evidence that the practice had checked references of conduct in previous employment, identification and training.
Staff training was now being monitored and recorded.
All staff were now receiving an appraisal of their performance.
Staff knew who to go to if they had concerns about infection control or safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.
The practices had implemented a policy relating to reviewing patients who were prescribed lithium. Evidence confirmed that these patients were being suitably monitored.
There were 45 patients who were on the learning disability register and aged over 16. 37 of these patients had a health check in the last year.
Exception reporting relating to a mental health indicator had been reviewed and there were plans to improve performance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on 27th October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 27th October 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced inspection carried out over two days: on 8th August 2017 and 5th September 2017. This was to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 27th October 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional concerns identified at our most recent inspection. We found that sufficient improvement had not been made.

Overall the practice is rated inadequate.

Governance at the practice was inadequate. There had been significant changes within the partnership over the last year, which had affected leadership. However, there were some improvements made during the course of our inspection.
The practice’s action plan that was submitted in response to the October 2016 inspection remained outstanding.
There were systems to review most patients taking high risk medicines although the monitoring of patients taking lithium was not effective. Only one out of six patients taking this medicine had received appropriate monitoring before a repeat prescription was issued.
The management of patient safety and medicine alerts had improved, as had the system for recording, learning and actioning change as a result of significant events.
There was a weekly ward round at a local care home by the GP medicine lead at the practice.
An additional salaried GP had been appointed whose responsibility was to coordinate and manage the care of the practice’s frail patients.
The infection control audit was incomplete. The infection control policy was dated 2013 and referred to staff who had left the practice. Infection control training was scheduled to take place for all staff members in the weeks following our inspection, as was a further infection control audit.
The practice had completed a health and safety and fire risk assessment although there was no Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) risk assessment.
Chaperones were now DBS checked which sought to ensure their suitability for the role.
The practice was now recording immunisation status. They were also recording registration with professional bodies and medical indemnity insurance, although this was not recorded for all members of the clinical team.
There continued to be a low number of carers identified. Systems to support carers were limited.
Data showed patient outcomes in respect of interactions with GPs had improved and these were now comparable to the local and national average. However, patient satisfaction was below local and national average in relation to how easy it was for patients to get through on the phone.
QOF performance continued to be in line with or better than local and national averages. There had been improvements in relation to low performance for one diabetes indicator, although there continued to be high exception rates in relation to a mental health indicator.
Policies had been updated in respect of safeguarding children and safeguarding adults.
Non-clinical staff were unclear as to who in the practice was the lead for safeguarding and had not received safeguarding training. Clinical staff had received some safeguarding training, but not to the level required for their role.
Clinical audits were being completed and were used to improve performance where identified
There was a lack of systems to ensure the competency of staff. There were gaps across all training. The system to record and review training was inconsistent.
There were no appraisals completed for non-clinical staff.
Prescription stationery was stored securely although there were no systems to track its location during the course of the day.
Recruitment checks were not consistent.
Evidence of conduct in previous employment and training was not requested when locum GPs were engaged to work at the practice.
There had been no formal learning disabilities checks in the last year, although a template had been created and a clinical lead for learning disabilities appointed.

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 the identification and systems to support patients who are carers.
Improve patient satisfaction in relation to getting through to the practice by phone.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield House Doctors Surgery on 27 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. However, it was not clear if patients always received an apology and explanation, although the provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour.
The system in place for managing patient safety and medicine alerts was not effective.
The practice had not completed a health and safety risk assessment or an infection control audit.
Not all staff carrying out the role of chaperone had received a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check and there was no risk assessment in place.
Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
Staff received appraisals that identified their training needs in order to meet the needs of service users. However we found that the system for monitoring this training required strengthening as some staff had not received training in basic life support and health and safety and other training was out of date.
Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
The practice had identified a low number of patients who were carers.
Data showed patient outcomes relating to interactions with GPs were low compared to the local and national average.
The practice was aware of their clinical performance and where improvements were required they had an action plan in place for improvement. However exception reporting was much higher than CCG and national averages in relation to one mental health indicator.
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 access to appointments via phone was difficult and the wait was sometimes long.
The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but these were overdue a review.
The practice had suitable facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
Staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

Ensure staff who act as chaperones either have a current Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check or a risk assessment has been completed.
Implement an effective system for the management of patient safety and medicine alerts.
Undertake a health and safety risk assessment as required by legislation.

In addition the provider should:

Improve formal governance arrangements including systems for assessing, monitoring and mitigating risks to patients. Continue to review performance data to improve outcomes for patients.
Consider ways to further improve patient satisfaction as identified by the national GP patient survey.
Review and update policies, procedures and guidance.
Implement a system for ensuring that all staff training is monitored and updated.
Ensure that patients affected by significant events receive an explanation and a written apology where relevant.
Ensure that clinical staff are registered with their appropriate bodies and have adequate insurance cover in place.
Improve the exception reporting rate for patients suffering with poor mental health.
Ensure that an infection control audit is completed and staff receive immunisations relevant to their role.
Improve the identification of patients who are carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Nuffield House Doctors Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

15 November 2021

During a routine inspection

12 October 2020

During a routine inspection

04/11/2019

During a routine inspection

29 April 2019

During a routine inspection

21 May 2018

During a routine inspection

20th March 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

8 August 2017 & 5 September 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

27 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)