You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Naseby Medical Centre. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.


Inspection carried out on 25 August 2017

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Naseby Medical Centre on 19 May 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good; however, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing responsive services. The full comprehensive report on the May 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Naseby Medical Centre on our website at

This inspection was an announced desk-based focused inspection carried out on 25 August 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to make improvements in relation to patient satisfaction, availability of non-urgent appointments and uptake of health screenings and reviews that we identified in our previous inspection on 19 May 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice continues to be rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Since the previous inspection, the practice analysed the national patient survey result and developed an action plan. To improve patient satisfaction the practice employed a full time GP to increase appointment access, a new phone system was introduced and better use of online services were made.

  • As a result, data from the July 2017 national GP patient survey showed patient satisfaction had improved in most areas. Unverified data from internal surveys carried out by the practice also showed improvements.

  • Previously the practice uptake of national screening such as bowel and breast cancer was below local and national averages.

  • Members of the management team we spoke with explained that following a survey carried out in February 2017 to assess reasons for low uptake, the practice identified a number of barriers. For example, misunderstanding regarding the purpose of screening, literacy barriers and language barriers as well as cultural and religious reasons. As a result, greater awareness of the benefits of screening was discussed with patients. Alerts were added to patient notes which prompted clinicians to opportunistically provide health promotion and advice during appointments.

  • More effective systems for following up patients who missed screening appointments were introduced and reception staff were able to communicate with patients in various languages.

  • Data from the 2015/16 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed that uptake rates for bowel cancer screening had declined; however breast screening slightly improved. Staff explained that they were aware of their performance and continued to educate patients on the benefits of screening. GPs were also engaging with local cancer intelligence networks to improve online literature in various languages.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 19 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Naseby Medical Centre on 19 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Staff we spoke with understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. We saw evidence to demonstrate that learning was shared amongst staff.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients we spoke with told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • We saw evidence to demonstrate that the practice had carried out an analysis of its patient population profile and developed targeted services. For example by offering more in-house services such as focussed diabetes care or ECG monitoring.
  • We saw that the practice was proactive in improving patient outcomes where identified although improvements were not yet seen in the current data.
  • Patients did not always find it easy to make an appointment although urgent appointments were usually available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice had carried out clinical audits and repeat audits to improve and maintain patient outcomes.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available in the waiting area and complaints information also found in the practice leaflet. Although the practice did not have any written complaints, we saw that verbal complaints were being logged on order to identify any trends.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice had sought feedback from staff and patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Explore areas for improvement in the areas of lower patient satisfaction in the national patient survey.
  • Progress steps taken to improve the availability of non-urgent appointments and reduce appointment waiting times.
  • Continue with efforts to make and maintain improvements in the management and monitoring of outcomes for patients. For example, increasing uptake rates of health screening and reviews.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice