You are here

Harris Memorial Surgery Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 13/04/2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (From the previous inspection in May 2016 the practice was rated as Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Harris Memorial Surgery on 13 April 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review arrangements for identifying informal carers who provide support to patients.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 4 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Harris Memorial Surgery on 4 May 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.
  • 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.
  • GP appointment times were for fifteen minutes allowing more time to discuss patient issues and complete more thorough diagnoses
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • 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.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice was EEFO level two accredited, one of only 20 services to achieve this level, ensuring services were young person friendly in every aspect of service delivery.

  • The practice was proactive in responding to patients recognised as having ‘white coat effect’ (The white coat effect means that patients blood pressure is higher when it is taken in a medical setting than it is when taken at home). 50 patients received 24 hour blood pressure monitoring in their homes, outcomes demonstrated that 50% of these patients required a lower dose of medicines for raised blood pressure and their medicines were adjusted accordingly .

We identified areas where the provider should make improvements

  • Review how medicines are stored and monitored to ensure temperature recording accounts for each day and includes non-refrigerated medicine storage.

  • Review standard operating procedures to demonstrate they are updated to reflect current practice guidance..

  • Review systems which identify, record and support patients who are also carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 8, 15 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with nine patients, all of whom told us they were satisfied with the service they had received. Comments included, �they are helpful, respectful and flexible about fitting us in around our own commitments�, �they always explain everything to me, I can ask questions and I feel listened to� and the reception staff are excellent, they completely dispel the myth about fierce doctor�s receptionists�. Patients told us they were able to visit either Illogan or Lanner to see a GP or nurse, that the appointment system was flexible and an appointment could be made quickly, often on the same day if necessary.

We found that patient�s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. We observed, and patients told us, they were respected by the staff at the practice.

Patients were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had systems in place to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Patients were able to obtain their medication from the dispensing practices if they chose, and were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Patients were cared for by staff who were provided with training that was relevant to their roles and positions.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received.