The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Cornford House Surgery Also known as Dr C M Bennett and Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

364 Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB1 8BA (01223) 247505

Provided and run by:
Cornford House Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

19 March 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Cornford House Surgery on 19 March 2020. 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.

7 September 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 7 September 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out improvements that we identified in our previous inspection on 11 August 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is still rated as good, and requires improvement for the safe domain. Our key findings were as follows:

  • The systems and processes to systematically record safety alerts had been improved and showed the alerts had been recorded, actions had been taken, and learning shared. This had improved the oversight of safety.
  • Annual infection prevention and control audits had been undertaken. However, we found out of date items in a clinical room and there was no system in place to check expiry dates of equipment.
  • We reviewed four personnel files and found appropriate recruitment checks had been undertaken prior to employment.
  • We found that there was a system to code patient records on the clinical system for children who did not attend a hospital appointment.
  • We reviewed three policies and found them to be up-to-date and reflective of current practice.
  • We reviewed the system for staff appraisals and found there was a comprehensive log to track when appraisals were due. We checked five staff appraisals and found these had all been completed in the last year.
  • The practice had improved the support offered to carers. There were leaflets in the waiting room which signposted carers to support groups and the practice had developed a ‘carer’s prescription’. This ensured that if a carer became unwell, the practice had systems in place to support both the carer and the person being cared for. The practice had identified 54 patients as carers (0.5% of the practice list).
  • The practice had recognised that results from the GP patient survey, published in July 2017, were in line with or below local and national averages for access. The practice had previously been using locum GPs but had employed two new partners in June 2017 to improve continuity of care. The practice had also employed a minor illness nurse. Other details of the action plan to improve patient satisfaction were; employing an emergency care practitioner, employing a pharmacist and changing the phone lines to a queue based system. They planned to complete a patient survey to assess whether their action plan was effective. The practice planned to complete these actions by the end of 2017. We spoke with nine patients on the day of inspection and eight of these were satisfied with access to the surgery. One reported difficulty accessing the same GP for continuity.

The areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Continue to proactively identify and offer support to carers.

  • Continue to assess the impact of improvements made relating to patient’s access to services.

  • Implement a system to monitor expiry dates of equipment in clinical rooms.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

11 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cornford House Surgery on 11 August 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 the practice had systems in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not robust enough to ensure patients were kept safe. For example, recruitment checks and infection control audits.
  • The practice had identified 46 patients as carers (0.4% of the practice list). The practice did not have an icon on the clinical system to alert staff if the patient was a carer.
  • Patient safety alerts were logged, shared and initial searches were completed and the changes effected but the necessary subsequent repeat reviews were not regularly conducted to ensure that medicines that were subject to safety alerts continued to be adequately monitored.
  • 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 did not find it easy to make an appointment with a named GP however urgent appointments were 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 however some staff had not received an appraisal in the previous 12 months.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure annual infection control audits continue to be completed.
  • Ensure regular staff appraisals are undertaken.
  • Ensure policies are reviewed regularly and relevant amendments made.
  • The practice should be proactive in identifying carers.
  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary employment checks for all staff for example, references and photographic identification.
  • Ensure repeat reviews of patient safety alerts searches are regularly conducted to ensure that medicines that are subject to safety alerts continue to be adequately monitored.
  • The practice should read code on their clinical system children who fail to attend a hospital appointment.
  • Improve access to appointments for patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice