We carried out a review of the data available to us about Village Medical Group 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 Village Medical Group, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Village Medical Group on 25 November 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 an effective system for reporting and recording significant events.
Risks to patients and staff were assessed and well managed.
Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. They had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
The practice used the information collected for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and their performance against national screening programmes, to monitor and improve outcomes for patients. The practice’s overall achievement, for 2015/16, was better than the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) and England averages.
All staff were actively engaged in monitoring and improving quality and patient outcomes.
Staff were highly committed to supporting patients to live healthier lives through a targeted and proactive approach to health promotion. The practice had a comprehensive screening programme, and had performed above, or similar to, the national averages in relation to breast, bowel and cervical screening.
The practice worked closely with other organisations, in planning how services were provided to ensure they met patients’ needs. Services were tailored to meet the needs of individual people and were delivered in a way that provided flexibility, choice and continuity of care.
Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and that they were involved in decisions about their treatment. Data from the NHS National GP Patient Survey of the practice, published in July 2016, showed high levels of patient satisfaction with the quality of GP and nurse consultations.
Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
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 well supported by the management team. Rigorous and effective governance arrangements were in place, which focussed on delivering good quality care.
Staff had a clear vision and strategy for the development of the practice and were committed to providing their patients with good quality care and treatment.
We also saw an area of outstanding practice:
The practice provides an Intermediate Musculoskeletal (muscle and joint) and Treatment Service (IMATS). This service provides patients registered with the practice, as well as those registered with other local GP surgeries (a patient population of approximately 69,000), with access to an assessment service provided by specialist physiotherapy practitioners. Without this service, these patients would need to be referred to orthopaedics and rheumatology secondary care services. Current data indicates the IMATs service will reduce referrals to the local care trust by more than 2600, during 2016/17.
The practice participated in primary care research to help improve patient outcomes. They had obtained Research Ready accreditation with the Royal College of General Practitioners, which demonstrated they had met the necessary regulatory requirements for carrying out research. To help assist with the delivery of their research programme, the practice had employed a research nurse, who also provided research support to other practices in the locality. This position was funded by the practice. The practice provided evidence that they were the most proactive research practice within their local clinical commissioning group, with one hundred and forty eight patients participating in 13 studies, during the previous two years.
However, there were also areas where the provider should make improvements. The provider should:
Use a standardised form to document significant events, to help promote consistent recording. The practice should also carry out a yearly review of significant events, to help identify common trends, themes and areas for improvement.
Continue to review the practice’s carers’ register to make sure it accurately reflects the number of patients registered who are also carers.
Revise the standard letter issued in response to complaints received, to include details of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Continue to take action to improve patient satisfaction levels in relation to telephone access and appointment waiting times.
Provide all non-clinical staff with adult safeguarding training.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
Patients we spoke with were complimentary about the care they received. We saw there were system in place to monitor and review people's care and treatment. One patient told us, 'There's nothing I feel I couldn't approach any of them for. I have confidence in the lot.'
The practice had in place safeguarding policies for both children and vulnerable adults. There was an identified lead clinician and staff were aware of what action to take should they have any concerns.
We found some areas of the practice had not been cleaned appropriately. It was unclear if cleaning staff were using appropriately colour coded equipment and current cleaning equipment was not stored correctly. Some sharps boxes had been overfilled.
The provider had a recruitment policy in place. General practitioners and nurses employed within the practice were checked to ensure they had an up to date registration with the appropriate professional body.