Archived: Crown Street Surgery

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Crown Street Surgery on 2 December 2015. 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 although records of actions taken could be improved.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed although records of actions taken in response to environmental risk assessments could be improved.
• 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. Training records could be improved to evidence the in-house training provided.
• 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• There were some shortfalls in record keeping for example, records were not always completed to evidence actions had been taken to address any learning points from investigations of significant events. Infection prevention and control training provided in-house was not recorded to evidence the content of the course and completion date. Records were not always completed to evidence action had been taken to address areas identified for improvement in the environmental risk assessment.

• Systems to communicate with staff could be improved. For example, staff did not feel they had the opportunity, as a team, for sufficient regular discussion about the operation of the practice and any changes being implemented.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice