You are here

Trevelyan House Surgery Good


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Trevelyan House Surgery on 9 September 2021. 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 Trevelyan House Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 19 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Trevelyan House Surgery on 19 February 2020. 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 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Grafton Medical Partners on 9 November 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 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. Most staff had been trained to provide them with 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.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they could make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. Some patients reported difficulty getting through to the practice on the telephone.
  • 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 several areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice provided the over 75s with an information pack which included a booklet produced in conjunction with the Patient Participation Group (PPG), entitled ‘Local Services for Older People’. This contained detailed information about support and welfare services, social services, voluntary organisations and support for ethnic minority groups.

  • The practice organised a Christmas Jumper Day and a raffle, the proceeds were used to fund transport for older patients who experienced difficulties in getting to and from the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensuring all staff, including locums, have role specific training.

  • Ensure the new phone system is introduced and continue to monitor patient feedback in relation to accessing the service.

  • Ensure complaints are responded to in line with the practice’s own policy.

  • Ensure policies and procedures are kept up to date with relevant contact details.

  • Review the process for identifying carers and the support that is provided for them.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice