The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Moat House Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Beech Close, Warboys, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE28 2RQ (01487) 822230

Provided and run by:
Moat House Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Moat House Surgery 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 Moat House Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

2 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Moat House Surgery on 2 July 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.

2 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Moat House Surgery on 2 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • 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.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and that they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Data from the National GP Patient Survey published in July 2016 showed that patients rated the practice higher than others for all areas of care. For example, 97% of patients said that the last GP they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern, in comparison to a local and national average of 85%.
  • 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 easy to make an appointment with a GP and that there was continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available on 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 well 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 one area of outstanding practice:

  • Teenagers were invited for a formal review when they were 16 to complete their immunisation schedule and as an opportunity to provide health promotion information, such as diet, exercise, substance misuse and sexual health.

However, the provider should:

  • Ensure that annual reviews for patients experiencing poor mental health are undertaken in a timely manner.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out this follow up review to check the actions the provider had taken to address the compliance action made at the previous inspection in February 2014. We followed up one outcome area of non-compliance identified in the previous inspection in February 2014. We reviewed evidence that demonstrated the provider was compliant with this essential standard.

11 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Patients' care, treatment and support needs were based upon their identified and recorded health conditions. These included those patients living with a long term and ongoing health condition such as asthma, hypertension or heart disease. Patients we spoke with thought the practice was 'brilliant, very caring, receptionist friendly and helpful."

Infection control and prevention training had not been provided for administration staff. Appropriate cleaning and infection control guidance had not always been followed. We could not be confident that patients were always cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Staff were provided with supervision, annual appraisals and support appropriate to their role. Clinical staff records we reviewed evidenced to us that these were all current and up to date with their professional registrations. This meant that patients could be confident that their care was provided by staff whose competence had been effectively established.

Of the two complaints that had been received by the provider, we saw that these had both been resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Patients we spoke with told us, "I have never, in 14 years, had cause to complain." Another person we spoke with said, "If I had a complaint I would ask to speak with the staff or manager."