The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Hall Green Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

164 Ormskirk Road, Upholland, Skelmersdale, Lancashire, WN8 0AB (01695) 588848

Provided and run by:
Hall Green Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 16 September 2025 to 18 September 2025. Hall Green Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 8263 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 98% of patients are White, and 2% Asian, Black, Mixed or Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

SAFE - The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

EFFECTIVE - People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

CARING - People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

WELL-LED: Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

19/05/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hall Green Surgery on 19th May 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 a system in place for reporting and recording significant events. Identified incidents were investigated thoroughly and improvements to practice made as a result.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • 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.
  • There was evidence of quality improvement including clinical audit, although learning and improvement could be further maximised by completion of second cycle audits.
  • Patients were strongly positive about their experience at the practice. They said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice had previously hosted a carers support and awareness training session attended both by the practice’s own staff as well as staff from five other local practices. The practice had been awarded a carers awareness training certificate and hosted regular carer support events on site.
  • 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 found it very easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice was proactive in its response to patients feedback in an effort to improve its patients experience of accessing healthcare. For example, it had successfully campaigned to have a pedestrian crossing installed on the busy road outside the building after a cohort of elderly patients had expressed that they felt unsafe visiting the practice.

  • The practice had also facilitated community healthcare providers updating their protocols around cross boundary referrals after a number of patients experienced difficulties accessing appropriate secondary care.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure practice policies contain sufficient detail and that all are readily available to staff.

  • When a decision has been taken not to seek a DBS check for a member of staff, for example when a check has been recently completed by another employer, a risk assessment should be undertaken to provide clear documentation of the reasoning behind this decision.

  • Ensure completion of second cycle clinical audits.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice