• Doctor
  • GP practice

Sabden & Whalley Medical Group

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

42 King Street, Whalley, Clitheroe, Lancashire, BB7 9SL (01254) 919888

Provided and run by:
Sabden & Whalley Medical Group

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

4 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Sabden & Whalley Medical Group on 4 February 2020. 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.

18/04/2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sabden and Whalley Medical Group on 26 September 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good with the key question of safe rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 26 September 2016 inspection can be found on our website at http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-545680228

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 18 April 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 26 September 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • At the inspection in September 2016 we found that liquid nitrogen storage was not risk assessed and clear operating procedures covering: filling containers, hazard signage, safe disposal, use of personal protective equipment and action to take in event of an emergency or spillage were not in place. At this inspection we saw the practice had risk assessed the storage of liquid nitrogen appropriately and trained staff and produced protocols in relation to its use.

  • During our inspection in September 2016, we saw that there was no legionella risk assessment for the surgery. For this inspection we were sent evidence that a legionella risk assessment had been undertaken and that water samples taken in September 2016 contained no trace of the bacteria.

  • During our inspection in September 2016 we saw that cleaning of the practice was not permanently recorded. Documents were now available which showed an auditable record of cleaning of the practice.

  • During our inspection in September 2016 we found that clinical audits were not full cycle to demonstrate continuous quality improvement in patient outcomes. The practice provided us with plans for a number of full cycle clinical audits to be completed in 2017.

During our inspection in September 2016 we told the practice they should review the use of chaperones, local policy and national guidance to determine whether current procedures are in line with best practice. The practice sent us a document used to train staff members to chaperone, told us they continued to ensure these staff members had received a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check and confirmed they promoted this service to patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

26 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sabden and Whalley Medical Group on 26 September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example, the practice nurse had developed a range of interventions to help patients manage their diabetes and for patients at risk of developing diabetes. This included a regular patient education session for those whose blood sugar levels suggested they were pre-diabetic.
  • Many risks to patients were assessed and well managed, though the storage and use of liquid nitrogen within the practice had not been risk assessed. The practice obtained control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) information for cleaning products during the inspection and water sample testing was in place to test for legionella although a risk assessment to determine the level of the control regime required had not been undertaken.
  • 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.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive.
  • The practice had worked with the CCG and community providers to ensure health visitors, district nurses and community services were available to patients at the practice due to the rural location.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. This included a small minor surgery room and the practice also acted as a treatment room for the local area to offer urgent care to patients to save them travelling into the local hospitals and urgent care centres.
  • 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.
  • 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 nurse who specialised in diabetes care actively screened for pre-diabetes and developed interventions to help patients at risk of developing diabetes reduce their risk. Patients were encouraged to attend education sessions which reviewed lifestyle choices and gave patients ways to reduce their blood sugar levels and risk of diabetes. Of 141 patients screened during a twelve month period, 106 (76%) had their risk significantly reduced. In additional to this, the nurse had adapted CCG diabetes record card to include insulin monitoring and management information. This booklet had been rolled out by the clinical commissioning group (CCG) to other local practices.

The treatment room service was open to registered and non-registered patients throughout the working day and data shared by the practice demonstrated that over 550 patients had used the service in the previous 12 months.

However there were areas of practice where the provider must make improvements:

  • Liquid nitrogen storage and use must be risk assessed and clear operating protocols should be in place to cover: filling containers, hazard signage, safe disposal, use of personal protective equipment and action to take in event of an emergency or spillage.

The areas where the practice should make improvements are:

  • Undertake a legionella risk assessment to determine the correct level of legionella control regime required.
  • Review the use of chaperones, the local policy and national guidance to determine whether current procedures are in line with best practice.
  • There should be an auditable record of cleaning and management checks of the premises.
  • Review the use of clinical audit to include full audit cycles and demonstrate continuous quality improvement in patient outcomes.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice