The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Eskdaill Medical

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Eskdaill Medical, Prospect House, 121 Lower Street, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN16 8DN (01536) 526526

Provided and run by:
Eskdaill Medical

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

9 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Eskdaill Medical on 9 November. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - good

Effective - good

Caring – not inspected

Responsive - good

Well-led - good

Following our previous inspection on 9 February 2016, 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 Eskdaill Medical on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities.

How we carried out the inspection/review

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Feedback from staff was pre-dominantly positive about working in the practice and the support they received from the GPs and practice management.
  • National GP Patient survey data indicated patients were not always satisfied with access to the practice and appointments. However, feedback gathered from patients as part of the inspection was more positive.
  • The practice were below targets for the uptake 3 of the 5 childhood immunisations and cervical screening. Measures had been put in place to increase the uptake.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to take measures to increase the uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening.
  • Continue to take measures to increase patient satisfaction with access to the practice and suitable appointment availability.
  • Embed and sustain the measures already in place to improve access to the practice.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

09 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Eskdaill Medical on 09 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The practice had a clear vision and had recognised the needs of patients in the community it served.
  • The partners had worked constructively to instil an open and transparent approach to safety. A clear system, which was made known to all staff, was in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were identified, assessed and appropriately managed. For example, the practice implemented appropriate recruitment checks for new staff, undertook regular clinical reviews and followed up-to-date medicines management protocols.
  • We saw that the staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff were encouraged to access training to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Feedback from patients was consistently positive. Patients we spoke with told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Comments from patients on the 25 completed CQC comment cards confirmed these views.
  • Results from the GP Patient Survey July 2015 were generally positive, with some outcomes higher than local and national outcomes. For example, 80% of patients would recommend the practice to someone new to the area, which was above the local and national averages.
  • Information about services and how to complain or provide feedback was available in the waiting area and published on the practice website. Where appropriate improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns. Outcomes from complaints were shared and learning opportunities identified as appropriate.
  • Appointments were readily available. Urgent appointments were available the same day, although not always with the patients named or usual GP. 75% of patients described their experience of making an appointment as good, which was higher than local and national averages.
  • The practice shared a purpose built, modern building with other care providers. They had access to good facilities and modern equipment in order to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and we noted there was positive outlook among the staff, with good levels of moral in the practice. Staff said they felt supported by management.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients in a variety of ways, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice