Archived: Fairmore Medical Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This is a focused desk top review of evidence supplied by Fairmore Medical Practice, for one area within the key question safe.

We found the practice to be good in providing safe services. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

The practice was inspected on 17 May 2016. The inspection was a comprehensive inspection under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (HSCA). At that inspection, the practice was rated ‘good’ overall. However, within the key question safe, one area was identified as requires improvement, as the practice was not meeting the legislation at that time; Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment.

At the inspection in May 2016 we found that the system and arrangements in place to ensure abnormal blood test results or x-rays received into the practice was not sufficient to ensure the practice responded appropriately and in good time to peoples changing needs.

The practice supplied an action plan and a range of documents which demonstrated they are now meeting the requirements of Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Fairmore Medical Practice on 17 May 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 a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and managed. However, the system in place to ensure abnormal blood test results or x-rays received into the practice was not sufficient to ensure these items were dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner.
• 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.
• 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 found it generally easy to make an appointment with a 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.
• 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 two areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice had recognised the growing number of military veterans in local area and had identified and made available a member of staff with appropriate skills and experience to provide help and assistance to patients who would benefit from additional support.

• The practice had developed health check supporting documentation for all patients that included both pictures and text to aid patient understanding and involvement in their own care.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

• Ensure all test results and x-rays received into the practice are reviewed by appropriately trained personnel and acted upon in a timely manner.

In addition the provider should:

• Ensure that activity undertaken to check and monitor emergency medicines and associated items is effective.

• Ensure clinical audit activity is fully completed and supported by a quality improvement programme.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice