The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Haslemere Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Church Lane,, Haslemere, Surrey, GU27 2BQ (01428) 748206

Provided and run by:
Haslemere Health Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Haslemere Health Centre 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 Haslemere Health Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

17 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused review at Haslemere Health Centre on 17 June 2021. The practice was not rated as a result of this review.

The practice had previously been inspection on 9 March 2016, and had been rated Good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Haslemere Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review

This review was a focused review of information held at the practice without undertaking a site visit. This was to follow up on specific concerns that had been raised about the practices’ prescribing of benzodiazepines to patients who were living in a care home.

How we carried out the review

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our reviews differently.

This review was carried out in a way which enabled us to work remotely without a site visit. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify any issues and clarify actions taken by the provider

Our findings

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 found that:

  • The records reviewed for patients in a care home setting prescribed bensodiazepines showed that the practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients, including who were resident in care homes, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

9 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Haslemere Health Centre on 9 March 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 the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. There was a broad skill mix amongst the staff.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice took a proactive approach to providing care for patients most at risk of admission to hospital.
  • The practice had developed a robust repeat medication system to ensure the appropriate reviews had been carried out where required.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. There was a daily minor ailments clinic.
  • 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 practice had a very well developed bespoke intranet system which contained referral forms and pathways making it easy for the GP to access up to date information and coordinate care.
  • The practice had recently employed a pharmacist who reviewed medication for patients discharged from hospital and provided a source of expertise for the practice.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had established a joint clinic with the practice nurse and vascular consultant allowing prompt and expert assessment of patients at potential risk of joint amputation. This early prioritisation had identified three patients who were at risk of significant loss of limb.
  • The practice provided pulse checks at the annual flu clinics and as a result identified 2.1% of their population as having atrial fibrillation, against a national average of 1.6%.

The area where the provider should make improvement is:

  • Review the arrangements for ensuring that patients with long term conditions receive high quality care in light of the high level of exception reporting in the Quality and Outcomes Framework.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

30 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service on the telephone. They had attended the practice on the day of our inspection for an appointment. These patients were randomly selected. We spoke with staff that included; the practice manager, three practice nurses, a receptionist and the registered manager, who was the lead general practitioner (GP). We also spoke with the representative of the Patients Participation Group (PPG).

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. We spent time talking with people and observing the interactions between staff and people. We reviewed records and systems.

When registered the provider declared compliance with all outcome areas.

We found that people were treated with respect and had treatment options discussed with them. People felt involved in their care and treatment.

We saw that there were effective infection control measures in place to prevent the spread of infection.

We looked at the processes that the practice had in place to ensure the people who used the service were protected from abuse. These processes ensured staff had an understanding of adult and child abuse and what to do if it was suspected.

We found that people understood how to make a complaint or how to raise concerns. They were helped to complete this process if necessary. The provider responded to complaints and kept these under review.