• Doctor
  • GP practice

Longton Hall Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Longton South Primary Care Centre, Greendock Street, Stoke-on-trent, ST3 2NA (01782) 948988

Provided and run by:
Longton Hall Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Longton Hall Surgery 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 Longton Hall Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

24 August 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Longton Hall Surgery on 24 August 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Outstanding

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 13 June 2017, 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 Longton Hall Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection for a newly registered location.

How we carried out the inspection/review

Throughout the pandemic Care Quality Commission (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 facilities
  • 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
  • Feedback from 19 staff questionnaires
  • Feedback from patients who submitted ‘Give Feedback on Care’ via Care Quality Commissions website.

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 practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There were consistently high levels of engagement with staff and people who used services.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. We saw that the management of patients and their medicines was safe.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care. The practice continued to respond to the GP National Patient Survey findings and developed action plans which were regularly reviewed as well as the completion of in-house patient and staff surveys.
  • 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-centre care.

We found areas of outstanding practice in providing responsive service:

  • Regular patient educational community outreach events were offered to hard-to-reach patients in local community venues. These had included for example; skin moles, skin cancer, pre-diabetes, diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease (COPD) this is the name for a group of lung conditions that cause breathing difficulties, and childhood epilepsy amongst others. This increased health promotion awareness and education for both staff and patients.
  • The practice worked with and involved local voluntary and charity organisations in the support of their patients and the local community. Feedback from one of these groups described the practice engagement with them as vital to their community. The practice partners had chosen to donated funds to local voluntary and charity organisations to support those more vulnerable locals in their local community.
  • The practice team regularly completed fund raising events for example for the homeless. The practice had set up a ‘practice fund’ in order that local voluntary and charity organisations could apply to access monies to support particular projects, as well as donating funds to a local care home for patient outings/events.
  • The practice in co-ordination with their local Primary Care Network practices fund raised for local voluntary and charity organisations and in the provision of patient education events, for example, computors4kids.
  • Regular access to a practice confidential room for a service that provides one to one support to veterans, including those not registered at the practice.

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

  • Continue to document staff immunisation history and embed this recruitment process by maintaining a record of staff vaccinations in line with best practice.
  • Continue to improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening.

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