You are here


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Goodheart Surgery on 7 October 2021. 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 Goodheart Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 9 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Goodheart Surgery on 9 November 2019. 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.

Inspection carried out on 22 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Goodheart Surgery on 22 March 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 in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • 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 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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. This means providers must be open and transparent with service users about their care and treatment, including when it goes wrong.

We saw some areas of outstanding practice including:

  • A palliative care coordinator was responsible for all aspects of communication and support for patients on their list. The palliative care coordinator also liaised with other agencies in the locality to arrange supported respite care for patients and family members. Staff had attended funerals of patients that had passed away to support direct family members and their relatives.

  • The practice had developed a support plan called ‘caring hands’. This included sections for palliative patients and patients with learning disabilities to identify their specific needs for example; ‘what’s important to me’, ‘how best to support me’ and ‘what does a good and bad day look like for me’. This allowed the practice to keep an on-going record of patient’s direct and changing health care support needs.

  • The practice had developed ‘language cards’. These were available in different nationality formats with a patient’s own nationality flag to identify them and had common health related questions for the patient to identify.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice