The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

St Johns Surgery Also known as First Health (UK) Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Main Road, Terrington St. John, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, PE14 7RR (01945) 880471

Provided and run by:
First Health (UK) Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

19 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about St Johns Surgery on 19 October 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.

13 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Johns Surgery on 13 October 2016. 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 and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was generally positive. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Data from the National GP Patient Survey published in July 2016 showed that patients rated the practice higher than others for some aspects of care, but below average for others. The practice had identified areas from improvement from the results.
  • 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 found it easy to make an appointment with a GP, however there was not always continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available on the same day.
  • 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 well 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.

The area where the provider should make an improvement is:

  • Ensure that patient feedback continues to be monitored to identify areas for improvement.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

8 January 2014

During a routine inspection

During the inspection visit we spoke to 15 people who all said they were satisfied with the treatment and care they had received. Three people told us they had preferred to see a GP and had concerns about being seen by an Emergency Care Practitioner (ECP) whom they thought was not qualified to manage their care. However, five other people told us that when they had requested to see a GP they had been offered an appointment with a GP. Other people told us they were satisfied with the care that was provided when they had been given a consultation with a GP, or with an ECP.

We saw evidence that care had been planned and provided to people and their treatment and any advice offered had had been included in their medical notes.

The safeguarding arrangements that were in place had ensured staff knew how to respond appropriately to any concerns and to report these concerns directly to the Local Authority safeguarding teams for children and for vulnerable adults.

Staff were suitable supported and trained to carry out their roles to a level of competency that ensured people were well cared for and safe.

We found that people who had raised complaints had been responded to within a suitable time and their complaints had been investigated. All complainants had been communicated with and the outcomes of the issues had been shared with them.