The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Abbey Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Mannock Medical Centre, Irthlingborough Road, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 1LT (01933) 233200

Provided and run by:
Abbey Medical 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 Abbey Medical 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 Abbey Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

27 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Abbey Medical Practice on 27 November. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - good

Effective - good

Caring – not inspected, rating of good carried forward from the previous inspection.

Responsive - good

Well-led - good

Following our previous inspection on 4 and 5 October 2016, 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 Abbey Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities.

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.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • The practice had listened to patients and made improvements to how patients could access the practice and make appointments.
  • Feedback from patients was pre-dominantly positive about the practice and the staff, particularly those who answered the telephones.
  • The National GP Patient survey showed an upward trend in patient satisfaction from the previous year in all 4 indicators which all scored higher than local and national averages.
  • Feedback from staff was pre-dominantly positive about working in the practice and the support they received from the GPs and practice management.
  • The practice were below targets for the uptake of cervical screening. Measures had been put in place to increase the uptake.
  • Some patients were overdue monitoring of their conditions. The practice had made attempts to contact them but no further measures were put in place to encourage engagement.

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

  • Continue to take measures to increase the uptake of cervical screening.
  • Explore measures to encourage patients to engage and undertake monitoring of their conditions.

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

4 and 5 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Abbey Medical Practice on 4 and 5 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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. Information about safety was recorded, monitored and reviewed and the results shared with staff including lessons learned.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. These included staff recruitment procedures, health and safety precautions, ensuring sufficient staffing was in place to meet patient needs There was adequate medical equipment and medicines available if a patient presented with a medical emergency.
  • Clinical staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had received role appropriate training to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patient feedback we reviewed showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. National patient survey data showed that patients consistently rated the services in line with local and national averages.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Where necessary improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Most patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and there was continuity of care, with all urgent appointment requests accommodated the same day.
  • The practice was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us they felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. Feedback was obtained in various ways including a number of ‘mystery shoppers’ (patients who attended and observed staff practices) and from the Patient Action Group.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw an area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had introduced a unique role to provide support for a specific group of patients. The veteran liaison officer carried out regular searches to identify the patient group, to date 60 patients had been found and a register developed. This enabled clinical staff to adopt an appropriate approach to these patients. The veteran liaison officer makes contact with patients who were classed by the national definition as a veteran. They provide a listening service and to sign post patients and their family members to a range of support services.

There were areas where the provider should make an improvements

  • Introduce a system to ensure formal sharing of information with the out of hour’s provider about the care needs and treatment of seriously ill patients.

  • Continue to identify and support carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 January 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with six patients. All of them were complimentary about the practice. Two patients told us, "It is most satisfactory." Another patient told us, "I like it. It's always clean. I like that there is a separate waiting room for parents with children. I like that the GP takes on board what I say. They don't rush me. They give advice about what I can do to stay well or get better." Another patient also told us that the GPs they saw listened and added, "The information they give has been helpful." Three patients told us that when their GP discussed treatments they would require at hospital they had always offered a choice of hospitals so that they could make an informed choice about which hospital to go to.

We found that patient's views and experiences had been taken into account by the practice. Patients had opportunities to provide feed comments using suggestions cards and the practice had an active and influential patient action group that was valued and listened to by the practice.

We saw that care and treatment was provided in a clean environment because the practice had effective cleaning and infection control procedures. Patients were safe because the practice had very effective adults and children safeguarding procedures about which all staff had received training.

The practice had well embedded quality monitoring systems, a clear governance structure and trained staff that ensured the practice was well run.