You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Review carried out on 19 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Fosse Family Practice on 19 November 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 09 May to 09 May 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Fosse Family Practice on 9 May 2018. This inspection was carried out as the practice had been registered as a new legal entity in 2017.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it. Results from GP patient survey findings showed high levels of satisfaction with how patients could access the service.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • The practice had lower than average performance in relation to the uptake of cancer screening by patients.
  • There were governance systems in place within the practice including evidence of learning from when things go wrong, the use of clinical audit and review of external feedback mechanisms.
  • Practice meetings were held with internal and external staff and appropriately recorded, however minutes of clinical meetings were not always maintained.
  • GP patient survey results were comparable or higher than average in a number of areas. However, they were marginally below average in relation to some aspects of GP consultations.
  • Medication reviews of patients were not always appropriately coded as having been undertaken, however further examination of patient records showed that this was likely to be due to a coding issue.
  • The practice did not meet the childhood vaccination target in three out of four of the measures.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review issues that may be preventing patients from taking up cancer screening services.
  • Review GP patient survey results and identify areas for improvement.
  • Review how the practice record minutes of all meetings to ensure that records are maintained.
  • Review childhood vaccination performance with a view to making improvements.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.