You are here

Archived: The Meads Medical Practice Good

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

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Meads Medical Practice on 5 October 2017. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the April 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Meads Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 29 March 2018. The purpose was to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 5 October 2017. A comprehensive action plan was provided by the practice in a timely manner, which detailed how action had been taken to make improvement. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There was a system to help ensure that all medicines alerts from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were actioned appropriately.
  • The practice was part of a commissioning pathway where some patients who were prescribed warfarin, an anticoagulant medicine, had their blood-clotting levels monitored outside of the practice. There was a system to check and record these levels prior to treatment being prescribed.

  • Higher than average areas of exception reporting for clinical outcomes had been addressed. The system to identify patients who were due to attend routine reviews had been reviewed. (Exception reporting is the removal of patients from calculations where, for example, the patients are unable to attend a review meeting).
  • There was a clear programme of quality reviews and clinical audits. Second cycles of audits had been carried out to demonstrate sustained improvements to patient outcomes.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

Effective

Good

Updated 5 December 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework showed patient outcomes were at or above average compared to the national average. However, rates of exception reporting for some indicators were high.

  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance, but there was no effective system whereby the practice ensured guidance was read and understood.

  • The practice was unable to demonstrate that clinical audits were driving improvements to patient outcomes; however there was a plan to monitor this.

  • Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.
  • Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.
  • End of life care was coordinated with other services involved.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 December 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice higher than others for several aspects of care.
  • Survey information we reviewed showed that patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Information for patients about the services available was accessible.
  • We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 December 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • The practice understood its population profile and had used this understanding to meet the needs of its population. For example, an urgent care practitioner was employed to provide same day appointments for people that needed them.
  • The practice took account of the needs and preferences of patients with life-limiting conditions, including patients with a condition other than cancer and patients living with dementia. End of life care planning was comprehensive.
  • Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.
  • Information about how to complain was available and evidence from sixteen examples reviewed showed the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

Older people

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 23 April 2018

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 23 April 2018