• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Fairstead Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Centre Point, Fairstead, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 4SR (01553) 772063

Provided and run by:
Fairstead Surgery

All Inspections

5 February 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Fairstead Surgery on 5 February 2015. The practice is led by the management team of Vida Healthcare who are the registered providers of Fairstead Surgery. There is a branch surgery located at St Augustine’s Surgery, Columbia Way, Kings Lynn, Norfolk.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive services and well led services. It was also good for providing services for the following population groups: older people; those with long term medical conditions; families, babies, children and young people; working age people and those recently retired; people in vulnerable circumstances who may have poor access to primary care; and people experiencing poor mental health. We found that care was tailored appropriately to the individual circumstances and needs of the patients in these groups.

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

  • Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity, care and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and were happy with the care that they received from the practice.
  • The practice was friendly, caring and responsive. It addressed patients’ needs and worked in partnership with other health and social care services to deliver individualised care.
  • The needs of patients were understood and services were offered to meet these.
  • The practice effectively used the benefits of being part of Vida Healthcare whilst retaining the individuality of being a small practice.
  • There were a number of clinical teams who specialised in different areas, in order to provide a focussed and effective service to patients.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, including those relating to recruitment checks.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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 named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should;

  • Review storage and safety arrangements for all vaccines in the fridges.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

5 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During our visit to Fairstead Surgery we spoke with six patients who were happy with the service they received. One patient told us, "My doctor is more like a friend." Another said the service was," Superb. When you ring for an appointment you get one."

We spoke with several staff who were able to demonstrate that they were knowledgeable about the needs of their patients. We found that they worked together as a team to ensure that they could offer appropriate clinics and consultations. This meant they were able to provide relevant care and treatment to meet the individual needs of the patients.

The surgery was based in an old building that had limited space and did not entirely suit the needs of people with a disability. Some adaptations had been made and the practice planned a move to new premises, although approval for the building plans was still required.

We found that further action was needed to ensure the premises were adequately maintained and that risks were safely managed. For example, a corridor radiator was hot to the touch and had no control measures to reduce the risk of burns or scalds such as warning signs or a protective cover.

We looked at the management of complaints and found that staff had listened to patient's views and had followed an effective complaints process.