You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 31 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Eskdaill Medical on 31 July 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 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