The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Woolpit Health Centre Also known as Dr Pearson & Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Heath Road, Woolpit, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP30 9QU (01359) 240298

Provided and run by:
Woolpit Health Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 20/01/2026 to 28/01/2026. Woolpit Health Centre is a GP practice and delivers a service to approximately 17000 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles shows 97.5% of people registered are White and 2.5% are either Asian, Mixed, Black or Other.The practice has a higher than England average of older people and is in line with the England average for young people and working age adults registered at the practice. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the practice population group is in the 9 decile (9 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. Policies were in place to safeguard people. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and 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 other 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 and 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 which the service took seriously and acted on. 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. 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.

18 April 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woolpit Health Centre on 5 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, with requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woolpit Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk .

We undertook a desk-based focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements in relation to the breach identified in our previous inspection on 5 December 2016. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had an effective system in place for monitoring the medicines in GPs bags.

  • The practice had updated the medicines searches that were completed quarterly, to ensure that prescribing was in accordance with current best practice. There was an effective policy in place for patients on high risk medicines who had declined to attend for a review.

  • Security arrangements for the dispensary had been reviewed and improved. Standard operating procedures had been reviewed and a system was in place to ensure this was completed on a regular basis and dispensing errors were discussed at team meetings.

  • The practice had updated the training matrix to include infection control which had been completed by all staff. Infection prevention and control training was booked for July 2017.

Appraisals for most staff had been undertaken. Staff teams undergoing a restructure had undergone an informal appraisal process.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

5 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woolpit Health Centre on 5 December 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 been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The most recent published results from the Quality and Outcomes Framework showed the practice scored 100% of the total number of points available. This was 2% above the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average and 5% above the national average. The overall exception reporting rate was 6%, which was 4% below the CCG and national average.
  • The practice could demonstrate improved outcomes for patients as a result of clinical audits, implementing research findings and participating in research. The practice held a weekly journal club, where clinicians and trainees presented and critically appraised articles. Checks were completed to ensure any learning from the research was being undertaken in practice.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice had identified 384 patients as carers (3% of the practice list).
  • 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.
  • The majority of 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.
  • There was a clear leadership structure, which was being further strengthened with the imminent appointment of a nurse manager. All the staff we spoke with felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The practice had a weekly newsletter for all staff which helped staff keep up to date with important information.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The area where the provider must make improvement is:

  • Implement an effective process to ensure that medicines kept in GPs bags are checked routinely to ensure medicines are in date.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Undertake repeat searches for historic patient safety alerts which may remain relevant.
  • Agree and implement a policy for how to manage patients on high risk medicines who decline to attend for a review.
  • Review the security arrangements and standard operating procedures for the dispensary on a regular basis. Ensure that all dispensing errors identified are discussed within the practice and audits are undertaken to ensure the quality of the dispensing service.
  • Ensure that all staff receive infection control and prevention training.
  • Ensure a system is in place for staff development, for example regular appraisals.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice subsidised a minibus service from each of the outlying villages to the practice to ensure that patients living in these villages could access the GP practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice