We carried out a review of the data available to us about Quay Lane 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 Quay Lane Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced inspection at Quay Lane Surgery on 29 June 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.
The key questions have been rated as;
Safe - Good
Effective - Good
Well-led - Good
Following our previous inspection on 22 May 2017, the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions.
The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Quay Lane Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Why we carried out this inspection
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.
How we carried out the inspection
Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.
This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.
This included:
Our findings
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
We have rated this practice as Good overall
We found that:
Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:
Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.
Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Quay Lane Surgery on 19 April 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
We saw one area of outstanding practice:
The practice worked with the community for the home delivery of medicines from the practice dispensary. 97% of patients meeting the criteria for accessing dispensing services obtained their medicines from the dispensary. The challenges of providing a service patients living in a large rural location covering 45 square miles with poor public transport and numerous housebound patients had been met by the practice. A voluntary member of staff worked four days a month to deliver medicines to housebound patients. The practice contacted patients to confirm one week prior to delivery. Patients told us they would otherwise find it very difficult to obtain their prescriptions.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
Quay Lane Surgery was inspected on Wednesday 21 January 2015. This was a comprehensive inspection.
The practice was situated in the rural village of St Germans, Cornwall and had a dispensary serving 97% of the patients at the practice. A dispensing practice is where GPs are able to prescribe and dispense medicines directly to patients who live in a rural setting which is a set distance from a pharmacy. The practice provided a service to approximately 4,000 patients of a diverse age group.
There is one small branch surgery situated in the village of Downderry. The GPs visit this branch each weekday. Downderry was not inspected on this occasion.
There were a team of three GP partners, and one associate GP within the organisation. Partners hold managerial and financial responsibility for running the business. There were two female and two male GPs. The team were supported by a practice manager, non-medical prescribing nurse, two health care assistants and a phlebotomist (member of staff who takes blood). The dispensary was managed by four dispensing staff. There were also additional administrative and reception staff.
Patients using the practice also had access to community staff including district nurses, community psychiatric nurses, health visitors, physiotherapists, speech therapists, counsellors, podiatrists and midwives.
We rated this practice as good.
Our key findings were as follows:
There was a track record and a culture of promptly responding to incidents and near misses and using these events to learn and change systems so that patient care could be improved. However, this learning was provided for the staff involved in any incident rather than the whole team.
Staff were aware of their responsibilities in regard to safeguarding and had a basic awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) but had not been provided with MCA training.
The GPs and other clinical staff were knowledgeable about how the decisions they made improved clinical outcomes for patients. Patients were complimentary about how their medical conditions were managed. However, the lack of clinical protocols in place for the management of chronic diseases meant that evidence could not be provided to show that treatment given was in line with best practice and national guidelines.
Patients explained that staff routinely asked patients for consent before invasive procedures were performed, however records did not always show this process had taken place.
The practice was pro-active in obtaining as much information as possible about their patients which does or could affect their health and wellbeing. Staff knew the practice patients well, were able to identify people in crisis and were professional and respectful when providing care and treatment.
The practice planned its services to meet the diversity of its patients. There were good facilities available, adjustments were made to meet the needs of the patients and there was an effective appointment system in place which enabled a good access to the service.
The practice had a vision and informal set of values which were understood by staff. There was a clear leadership structure in place.
We found two areas of outstanding practice.
· The practice had a ‘Pride in Practice’ award for the recognition and sensitive treatment of people who are of Lesbian, Gay and Bi-sexual orientation .
· The practice was also registered as a C card centre. This is a nationally recognised ‘Free Condoms No Fuss’ scheme, where condoms are provided to anyone living, working or studying in the community, whether they are patients or not.
There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements.
The provider should:
· Improve the records to confirm that consent had been obtained for invasive procedures such as ear syringing and cervical screening.
· Provide MCA training for staff.
· Implement a system so that all clinical staff are able to discuss clinical issues and significant events to ensure risks are minimised and improvements are made where indicated.
· Improve and maintain the histology results monitoring record to ensure results are followed up promptly.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice