You are here

Claremont Medical Practice Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 19 June 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating August 2015 – Good)

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Claremont Medical Practice on 19 June 2016 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice used the computer based CPIS (Child Protection Information System) which assisted in detecting a pattern of healthcare seeking behaviour where patients were avoiding seeing their GP. This enabled GPs and other health professionals to make informed decisions regarding child safeguarding.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care they provided. They ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

Inspection carried out on 11 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Claremont Medical Practice on 11 August 2015.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents. All opportunities for learning from incidents were maximised.

  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.

  • The practice worked closely with other organisations in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet people’s needs.

  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the Patient Participation Group (PPG).
  • The practice was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.

  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. A business plan was in place, was monitored and regularly reviewed and discussed with all staff. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff with evidence of team working across all roles.

We identified areas of outstanding practice. For example;

The practice was innovative in delivering services to meet patient’s needs. For example, the practice had instigated a pilot scheme between October 2014 to March 2015 to introduce online face to face video conferencing appointments. Patients stated that this pilot had been successful. A total of 56 patients had been treated using the pilot scheme. All patients who used the online service had provided positive feedback. The practice had worked with local media including newspapers and radio services to advertise the service. Due to the success of the pilot the practice has continued to offer this service to all patients.

There had been some patient feedback about a lack of continuity with seeing different GPs. The practice had responded to this by introducing a GP buddy system to ensure that two GPs had good knowledge of each patient’s needs and could cover for their GP buddy’s absences. As a direct result of this feedback, the practice had also recruited successfully for a GP partner to work eight sessions (four days) a week at the practice. This enabled more patients to see the same GP if they wished to do so.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice