You are here

The Partners Good Also known as Newton Drive Health Centre

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 The Partners 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 The Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 8 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Partners on 8 August 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 05/08/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Partners (also known as Newton Drive Health Centre) on 5 August 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 been trained to provide them with 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.
  • The practice had been awarded a “GP practice of the year” certificate by the local carers centre for its work supporting carers and their families.
  • 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.
  • 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:

  • Strengthen processes to ensure that GPs see all pieces of clinical correspondence or that robust guidance is produced for administrative staff to follow.

  • A risk assessment of the decision to offer less than annual Basic Life Support training to non clinical staff should be documented.

  • Consider and document recruitment checks for previous trainee GP's who were now employed by the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 10 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke individually with the practice manager and four staff at The Partners. We also discussed treatment with four people who were currently using the service. We reviewed staff files, policies and procedures and various audit records.

The service ensured that whilst people were receiving treatment, they were cared for in a supportive and respectful manner. One person told us, "I have been coming here for many years now and have nothing but praise for the practice".

The Partners demonstrated effective practice in relation to infection control. During our inspection, staff followed the service's related policy. People told us they had confidence that high standards in infection control were being maintained.

The service had a variety of recruitment policies and related procedures in place. All staff had undergone a range of checks prior to being employed. This meant that people using the service were protected from unsafe recruitment. Additionally, there were a variety of appropriate processes in place to monitor the quality of service provision.