The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Drs O'Neill, Evans & Lunn

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Gas House Lane Surgery, Morpeth NUS Central Centre, The Mount, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1JX (01670) 513657

Provided and run by:
Drs O'Neill, Evans & Lunn

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Drs O'Neill, Evans & Lunn 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 Drs O'Neill, Evans & Lunn, you can give feedback on this service.

7 and 9 December

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Gashouse Lane Surgery (also known as Drs O’Neill, Evans & Lunn) on 7 and 9 December 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

The key question ratings were:

Safe – Good

Effective – Good

Caring – Not inspected rating of Good carried forward from last inspection

Responsive - Not inspected rating of Good carried forward from last inspection

Well-led – Good

At our previous inspection in April 2016 we rated the practice as Good overall. They were rated as Good for all of the key questions. We did not inspect the key questions of Caring or Responsive during this inspection, therefore they remain rated as Good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Drs O’Neill, Evans & Lunn on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a focused inspection to respond to risk and follow up on concerns that were raised with us.

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.
  • Staff questionnaires
  • 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 and Good for the Key Questions of Safe, Effective and Well-Led.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The practice was working hard to ensure backlogs created by COVID-19 were being reduced quickly and safely.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The practice aimed to promote the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • People were satisfied with the way they accessed services the practice offered. The practice had introduced new measures to address this issue.

Though we found breaches of regulation the provider should:

  • Continue to develop and improve its records relating to the immunisation of staff.
  • Appoint a Freedom to Speak Up Guardian to facilitate staff having access to independent support to raise any concerns they may have.
  • Continue to re-establish and develop the patient participation group.

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

2 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs O'Neill, Evans & Lunn on 2 February 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.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice performed highly on the most recently published National GP Patient Survey.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • On the National GP Patient Survey, the practice consistently scored higher than the national and local averages across a number of indicators, including those related to satisfaction with the service, ease of access to the service and patient involvement in planning and making decisions about their care and treatment. For example, 100% of patients described their overall experience as good (compared to a CCG average 87.1% and a national average of 84.8%). 99.1% found it easy to get through to this surgery by phone (compared to a CCG average of 76.8% and a national average of 73.3%). 96.8% would recommend the practice to someone new to the area (compared to a CCG average 81.2% and a national average of 77.5%).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice