• Doctor
  • GP practice

Valens Medical Partnership

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Surgery, Wellway, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1BJ (01670) 502333

Provided and run by:
Valens Medical Partnership

All Inspections

26 July 9 september

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Valens Medical Partnership on 26 July and 9 August 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective – Good

Caring - Not inspected, rating of Outstanding carried forward from previous inspection.

Responsive - Good

Well-led – Good

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection in response to information of concern we received.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • 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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice regularly reviewed its access arrangements for patients
  • The practice used clinical audits to improve care and treatment.
  • The practice dealt with complaints in a timely manner and learned from them.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

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

  • Continue to develop solutions to provide better access to their patients.
  • Continue to develop medicines stewardship including their response to important safety alerts.
  • Continue to improve their monitoring of patients with long term conditions such as asthma.

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

25 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wellway Medical Group on 25 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as outstanding.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes. Clinical audits had been triggered by new guidance and from learning from significant events.
  • Data showed that the practice was performing highly when compared to practices nationally and in the Clinical Commissioning Group. The latest publicly available data from 2014/15 showed the practice had achieved 99.7% (England average 94.8%) of the total number of points available to them, with a clinical exception reporting rate of 4.6% (England average 9.2%).
  • Staff were consistent and proactive in supporting patients to live healthier lives through a targeted approach to health promotion. Information was provided to patients to help them understand the care and treatment available.
  • 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 good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they were able to get an appointment with a GP when they needed one, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with staff.
  • There was a clear leadership structure in place and staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which they acted on.
  • Staff throughout the practice worked well together as a team.

We saw several of outstanding practice which included:

  • The practice had all-encompassing systems and processes in place to ensure that patients received high quality care and treatment. These included learning from significant events, triggering clinical audits and then changes in clinical practise which improved patient care.
  • The practice introduced ‘LEAN’ processes for all their pathways including systems focussed on improving access to their services. Using the LEAN system removed unnecessary tasks to ensure a faster and more efficient process. Patient access was improved following critical feedback from patients in the GP National Patient Survey in 2013 when only 25% of patients said it was easy to get through on the telephone. After introduction of a new LEAN appointment system the January 2016 score had improved to 92%. The CCG gave also feedback that attendances of their patients, at the local access centres, had reduced significantly, noting that in 2013, 1070 patients attended while in 2015, 261 attended which was a reduction of 73% over that two year period.
  • The practice had an excellent learning culture. They took quality improvement very seriously. The practice had a very evident culture of improvement across all staff groups, led by the Quality & Performance Team. There was a clear and proactive approach to seeking out and embedding new ways of providing care and treatment. For example, the practice had recently recruited a paediatric advanced nurse practitioner to improve services for children. We saw this had led to higher than average performance across a number of patient outcome indicators and they had been rated as a higher achieving practice within the General Practice Outcome Standards (GPOS).
  • The practice took the needs of carers very seriously by appointing a carer’s champion whose role was to promote the needs of carers and liaise with the local carer’s organisation. We saw they maintained information for carers boards in each of the waiting areas of the surgeries which contained a wealth of information. Information for carers was also posted on their social media pages. This included support available at home, mobility aids and transport support. The practice had information setting out what their goal was as a practice to support carers. The local carer’s organisation had provided carer awareness training for staff. They also featured the work the practice were doing for carers on their website. The practice’s computer system alerted GPs if a patient was a carer. There were 367 patients on their carer’s register which was 2% of the practice population. The practice offered annual health checks for carers in the carers birthday month.
  • The practice took the needs of vulnerable patients seriously. A lead nurse role had been nominated vulnerable groups which included patients with learning disabilities, epilepsy and sensory impairment. The practice maintained a register of patients with a learning disability. They were offered a yearly review with the lead nurse. Health action plans with personalised goals had been designed for the patients, including easy read health action plans for patients with a learning disability. The practice nurse had liaised with a local specialised nurse for advice and was seeking feedback from patients regarding the service the patients received. The practice provided GP and practice nurse services to a local hospital forensic mental health unit for patients who had been referred by the courts for assessment or who had been declared as not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial by the Criminal Justice System.
  • The practice had introduced a programme to reduce unplanned admissions to hospital. This ‘high risk patient pathway’ focussed on frail elderly patients, those on their palliative care and mental health register and some high risk patients who had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A care plan had been introduced for each patient. A multidisciplinary, high risk patient pathway meeting was held monthly. As a result of this the practice’s emergency admissions to hospital for the over 65s had reduced from 15.68 per 1,000 patient population to 11.73 from quarter 1 of 2015/16 to quarter 2 of 2015/16.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice