You are here

Park and St Francis Surgery Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 July 2019

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Park & St Francis Surgery on 29 May 2019. We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual regulatory review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Are the services at this location safe?
  • Are services at this location effective?
  • Are the services at this location responsive to patients’ needs?
  • Are the services at this location well-led?

The practice’s annual regulatory review did not indicate that the quality of care had changed in relation to the key question of caring. As a result, the rating from the practice’s previous inspection from 2014 for caring remains unchanged.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall.

We found:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The practice recorded and reported significant events appropriately.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice had undertaken an audit of its Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) codes which had improved its QOF data from 2017/18.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The practice was accredited as Dementia, Learning Disability and Veteran Friendly and was looking to become the first practice locally to be LBGT+ Friendly to best meet the needs of its population.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • The practice reviewed areas of business risk appropriately, for example in relation to an increase in practice population numbers following the closure of a local practice in 2017. The practice had inherited over 2,500 patients as a result.

We identified areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had worked with patients with chronic pain to meet their needs. Opioid prescribing rates had reduced by 28%.
  • The practice was a sessional research practice and employed a dedicated research nurse. The practice contributed to multiple research studies every year to improve the services and outcomes of primary care for all patients, not just those registered with the practice.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to work towards all staff receiving appropriate safeguarding training relevant to their role in line with the new national intercollegiate guidance.
  • Continue to improve the practice’s Quality and Outcome Framework data to be in line with local and national averages.
  • Review how staff vaccination statuses are recorded.
  • Continue to improve uptake for cervical screening to ensure the practice’s meets the national target of 80%.
  • Review how consent is recording in patient records to ensure all clinicians are compliant with the practice’s own policies.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

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