You are here

Halcyon Medical Limited Good Also known as Halcyon Medical Practice

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 January 2019

We carried out an announced focused inspection on 26 November 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations we identified in our previous inspection in March 2018 where breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 were identified. The practice was rated as good overall at the March 2018 inspections, however we had rated the safe key question and the families, children and young people population group as requires improvement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection on 1 March 2018; by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Halcyon Medical Limited on our website at This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

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 now rated both the safe key question and the families, children and young people population group as good as the practice has made the improvements required. This means that the practice remains rated as good overall.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The provider had processes in place to gain assurances through relevant checks that staff were competent for their role prior to employment.
  • The provider had reviewed all non clinical staff immunisation status to mitigate risk to both patients and staff.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Staff carrying out the role of chaperoning had completed the appropriate training and received a DBS check.
  • A review of the management of clinical correspondence had been completed and a quality assurance process had been implemented to ensure all letters were dealt with in a timely manner.
  • The practice had commenced on a CCG initiative to improve the accuracy of clinical coding and support the GPs in the management of clinical time.
  • Childhood immunisation rates continued to be lower than the national average, however the practice had implemented processes to encourage patients to attend for immunisation and the practice had seen an increase in uptake in comparison to previous years.
  • The practice carried out annual infection control audits. Areas identified as requiring action were discussed with the landlords for improvement.
  • The practice monitored performance against national screening programmes to improve patient outcomes.
  • With the practice moving to new premises in the near future, patients had been invited to attend an event to discuss the move with the medical director and staff.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions


Families, children and young people


Working age people (including those recently retired and students)


People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)


People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable