You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Perry Park Surgery on 9 September 2021. 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 Perry Park Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 16 September 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focussed inspection at Perry Park Surgery 16 September 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We carried out an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on the following key questions: Effective and Well-led.

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions: safe, responsive and caring.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups except w

orking age people (including those recently retired and students) .

We found that:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice had made positive progress to improve childhood immunisations although further improvements were required to meet recognised targets.
  • Similarly, uptake of cancer screening particularly cervical cytology required further improvement.
  • Learning was encouraged, and staff were given opportunities to develop the skills required for their roles and responsibilities.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Two senior partners were due to retire within the next six months and the service needed to develop a formal strategy and direction to ensure sustainability.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Update the practice website to ensure information is relevant and current.
  • Continue to review action taken to improve uptake of national cancer screening to ensure it is working.
  • Consider if additional nursing time for greater flexibility particularly regarding improving uptake for cancer screening including cervical cytology.
  • Continue to monitor childhood immunisations to ensure meeting relevant targets.
  • Consider a formal strategy for succession planning and direction of service and ensure staff members are involved and aware.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection carried out on 8 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Perry Park Medical Centre on 8 September 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were discussed and where possible acted on.
  • Practice staff were proactive in utilising methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example, reviewing patients who had attended the A&E department at the local hospital and providing them with guidance about alternative measures.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
  • Practice staff worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet people’s needs.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the Patient Participation Group (PPG).
  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff with evidence of strong team working across all roles.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice