The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Coniston Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Parade, Coniston Road, Bristol, Avon, BS34 5TF (0117) 969 2508

Provided and run by:
Coniston Medical Practice

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

11 October 2021

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Coniston Medical Practice on 11 October 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Well-led - Good

At our previous inspection on 1 October 2019, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall. It was rated Requires Improvement for safe and well-led services, but Good for effective, caring and responsive. The practice was found in breach of regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Good governance. The practice needed to establish and embed effective quality assurance systems and processes and ensure compliance with the regulations.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection to follow up on:

  • Safe and well-led. We also looked at effective as part of our published methodology for follow-up inspections.
  • Practice meeting the compliance with Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Good governance.
  • Ratings from the caring and responsive key questions were carried from our inspection in October 2019, when both key questions were rated as Good.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the 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 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 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 provider had made improvements in all areas identified at the previous inspection.
  • 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.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • 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-centred care.

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

  • Maintain effective monitoring and oversight of medication that are high risk and those prescribed for long-term conditions.
  • Continiue to promote cervical screening to meet the national targets.

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

1 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This practice is rated as Requires Improvement overall. (Previous inspection 1 March 2016 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires Improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Requires Improvement

We carried out an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on the following key questions: Safe, Effective and Well-led

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions: Caring and Responsive.

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

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.

At this inspection, we found:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence-based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Risks to health and safety had not been fully assessed and actions had not been implemented to mitigate identified risks.
  • Systems and processes to ensure that staff were of good character and maintained their professional registration were ineffective.

The areas where the practice must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

The areas where the practice should make improvements are:

  • Continue to improve performance for reviews of long-term conditions and for cancer screening.
  • Continue to improve appointment accessibility.

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

1 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Coniston Medical Practice on 1 March 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently and strongly positive.

  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet patients’ needs. For example, they were part of the One Care Consortium and took part in pilot schemes such as the weekend GP review.

  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an urgent appointment with a GP and there was continuity of care.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice