You are here

Archived: Carlton House Surgery Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Review carried out on 10 May 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Carlton House Surgery on 10 May 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 27 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Carlton House Surgery on 27 January 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 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • Appointments with a named GP were available but were more difficult to obtain. The practice was aware of this, having previously operated system wherein each GP had personal patient lists. The practice had taken action to educate patients about different ways of accessing appointments, this included distributing leaflets explaining how to get the most from their appointments and explaining the new appointment system.
  • 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review the practice website to show information about how to make a complaint and to whom it should be addressed.

  • Keep a log of the emergency medicines stored to ensure that anything used is replaced.


Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 6 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven patients during our visit. All patients were very satisfied with the service they received from their GP. Some of the comments we received included �it�s a great practice." We observed patients being treated with dignity and respect. A patient commented that staff were �polite and friendly." Patients understood the care and treatment choices available to them and felt they were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. Patients and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

Patients were able to make an appointment to see their GP without many problems. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patient�s safety and welfare. A patient told us �doctors have been very thorough and have always given me time." Patients were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Patients spoken with commented that the practice was clean and systems were in place to control the spread of infection, although these systems could be strengthened.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place to ensure patients were cared for by suitably experienced and qualified staff. Clarity was needed however as to which staff required a criminal record check and how this was decided and risk assessed.