You are here

Archived: Dockham Road Surgery Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile


Review carried out on 23 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dockham Road Surgery on 23 August 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.

Inspection carried out on 28 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dockham Road Surgery on 28 July 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 an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

  • 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.
  • 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. 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 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.
  • 98% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which exceeds both the clinical commissioning group (CCG) average of 86% and the national average of 84%.
  • 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.
  • When there were unintended or unexpected safety incidents, patients received reasonable support, truthful information, a verbal and written apology and were told about any actions to improve processes to prevent the same thing happening again.

We found one area where the provider should make improvement:

  • The provider should seek support to recruit members to its patient participation group, to better reflect the patient population it serves.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 22 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the surgery on 22 May 2013 and spent the day there. We spent time with the practice manager, a practice nurse, a doctor, reception staff and patients. We also contacted some patients on the telephone after our visit. All of the patients we met spoke positively about the treatment and support they had been given.

Patients told us �I always see the same doctor, this is important to me as I have some serious health problems and I don�t want to have to keep repeating myself all of the time�, they added �Dr X makes you feel that you are in control of your health problems, treatment options are fully explained to me and I feel that the doctor takes time to listen and allay any fears I may have had�.

Another patient told us �I find the doctors, practice nurses and reception staff all to be very understanding and very kind. My mother and brother have passed away recently and the staff were exceptional in them with their end of life care and they supported me to understand and cope. For that I will be forever grateful�.

We found that staff were clear about what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. Staff had completed some training in this area, further training had been arranged. Policies and procedures were in place to guide their practice.

We talked with patients about their confidence in the skills and knowledge of staff and asked them their view of staff competency. People told us that all the staff they had met seemed competent, skilled and knowledgeable. One patient said that the practice had "very effective, kind and professional staff".

None of the patients we met had complained to the practice in the past. Patients said they felt confident if they had cause to complain it would be dealt with in an efficient professional manner.