Archived: Water Eaton Health Centre

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Water Eaton Health Centre on 16 August 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the August 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Water Eaton Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 27 September 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out the recommended areas where they should make improvements that we identified in our previous inspection on 16 August 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Data from the National GP Patient Survey published in July 2017 showed that patients rated the practice below local and national averages for some aspects of care. However, there was some improvement in satisfaction scores from the previous survey published in July 2016.
• The practice had identified 80 patients as carers which equated to approximately 1% of the practice list. They had a carers champion and staff had received training to help them identify carers and the support available to them.
• A new telephone system had been introduced and the appointments system had been reviewed to improve access to the surgery. The practice had completed its own survey to monitor patients’ satisfaction with the changes they had implemented.

Additionally where we previously told the practice they should make improvements our key finding was as follows:

• The practice had introduced a Repeat Prescribing Policy. They had recruited a pharmacist who completed medication reviews in addition to the GPs. We reviewed the electronic patient record system and found evidence that processes had been implemented to ensure patients received appropriate blood tests and monitoring when prescribed high risk medicines.
• We reviewed four staff files and found they contained appropriate recruitment checks that included formal checks to establish proof of identification and the right to work in the UK for all staff.
• Contractual obligations with NHS Property Services for the building maintenance had been established. The practice had an online contact to whom they could report any issues with the building.
• We were informed by the practice that a copy of the business continuity plan was kept off site by the GP partners, the practice manager and the deputy practice manager. We noted that there was also a copy kept in the practice manager’s office and on the practice computer system for all staff to access.
• The practice had not documented a business plan but informed us that discussions had been held with regards to future changes to the GP partnership. Plans were in place to recruit a new GP partner, additional nursing staff and to explore the options of recruiting a paramedic to assist with the care of patients with minor illness or injuries.
• We were informed that the practice had consulted with NHS England on how to improve patient participation in cancer screening programmes. We saw evidence of letters that the practice sent to patients who had not responded to screening that advised them of the procedures involved and the benefits of early detection of certain cancers.

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

Importantly, the provider should:

• Continue to identify and ensure support to carers.
• Continue work to ensure improvement to National GP patient survey results.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice