• Doctor
  • GP practice

Willington Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Kingfisher Lane, Willington, Derby, Derbyshire, DE65 6QT (01283) 703318

Provided and run by:
Willington Surgery

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

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 29 April to 7 May 2025. Willington Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 10,523 people under a contract held with NHS England. We carried out an assessment because the service had not been inspected since 2015. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 89% white, 6.6% Asian, 2.2% mixed, 1.2% black and 1.1% other. The age distribution of the practice population indicates the practice had a higher number of older people than the local and national averages and lower numbers of working age and young people. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 10th decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained, however, not all risks had been mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Not all required information was available in staff files. Following our assessment the provider took positive action to obtain this information. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. The provider was taking action to improve the process for delivering specific injections by the nursing team.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. However, not all do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision forms were on file, or completed in line with national guidance.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and staff respected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. There was a positive culture in helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt very supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff were very positive about the culture within the practice and the support they received. There were systems in place to support continuous learning and innovation.

3 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Willington Surgery on 3 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, and appropriately reviewed. Learning was applied from events to enhance future service delivery but this was not always cascaded widely.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. This was kept under review by the practice which used audit as a mechanism to ensure patients received safe and effective care.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. Regular liaison meetings were held with the wider multi-disciplinary team to co-ordinate the provision of effective and responsive care and this included a care coordinator. The CCG pharmacist attached to the practice provided regular and effective support on medication issues and provided support for the nurse prescriber.

  • Most of the practice team had received an annual appraisal and had undertaken training appropriate to their roles, with any further training needs identified and supported by the practice. Those who had not completed an appraisal had one planned within the practice’s agreed timescale
  • Results from the national GP survey, and responses to our conversations with patients showed that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect, and that they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

  • Urgent appointments were available on the day they were requested. However, patients said that they sometimes had to wait a long time for non-urgent appointments.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management and motivated to deliver high quality care. However, there had been a delay in reviewing some policies as they were uploaded onto the new IT and data management system, but there were plans to rectify this within 6 months.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from patients, which it acted upon. For example, the practice undertook patient surveys and encouraged ongoing feedback via the use of a suggestion box. The practice implemented changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) who were proactive and met regularly.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Complaints were followed up but learning was not always cascaded widely.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour

However, the practice should

Implement systems to ensure appraisals are completed within agreed timescales and recorded as such.

Review the arrangements for cascading learning from significant events to try and prevent recurrence.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice