You are here

The Ridge Medical Practice Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 February 2019

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 14 January 2019. This was to confirm that the practice had improved in the areas identified at an earlier inspection. We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Ridge Medical Practice on 28 November and 5 December 2017. The overall rating for the practice was good, with a rating of requires improvement for providing responsive services. We told the provider they should:

• Continue to review, act on and improve patient satisfaction in accessing services at the provider and in their interactions with clinical staff. Patient satisfaction in these areas was below local and national averages and highlighted as an issue of concern in patient feedback during the inspection.

• Review how strategic policy and decision making is shared by the senior leadership team across the wider staff team and patient population. Some staff we spoke with spoke with described a lack of effective communication across the organisation. Patient insights into why non-GP clinicians were offered in place of a doctor was not widely understood in some of the feedback we received during our inspection.

The full comprehensive report for that inspection (published on 29 January 2018) can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Ridge Medical Practice on our website at .

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based on a combination of what we found when we inspected, information from the provider, patients, public, other organisations and our ongoing monitoring of data about services.

Our findings from the most recent inspection confirm that:

This practice remains rated as good overall and is also now rated as good for providing responsive services.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had undertaken their own comprehensive patient satisfaction survey and consulted widely across their practice population. Results from this survey showed improvement against the most recent GP national patient survey against like for like questions and was twice the sample of the national survey.
  • Focus group consultations had been held with hard to reach sections of the patient population to be assured that all voices were being actively heard.
  • Additional resources had been invested into the telephone system that had improved the effectiveness of the appointment system. We saw that patient satisfaction had improved as a result.
  • The practice had engaged with two other practices to understand how they had achieved high levels of patient satisfaction and applied the learning to their ongoing business and communication strategy across the staff team and patient population.
  • The practice had trained staff in the care navigation model of care to direct patients to the most appropriate clinician or service.
  • Patients who did not speak English were able to see an East European interpreter available at the main site every weekday morning or speak to a range of staff fluent in a range of commonly spoken South Asian languages.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Effective

Good

Caring

Good

Responsive

Good

Well-led

Good
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Families, children and young people

Good

Older people

Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good