The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Pump House Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Nonancourt Way, Earls Colne, Colchester, Essex, CO6 2SW (01787) 222022

Provided and run by:
The Pump House Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 16 July 2026. The Pump House Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 8265 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 96% White, 1.3% Asian, 1.5% Mixed, 0.7% Black and 0.4% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 5 key questions. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

Safe: Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately to ensure people were kept safe. They assessed and managed the risk of infection well and took steps to control the risk of it spreading. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience.

Effective: Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes.

Caring: Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive: People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.

Well-led: The service had a clear vision and strategy, which considered the needs of the people who used their service and the wider community. Staff understood their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders accounted for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff through clear and effective governance processes.

11 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Pump House Surgery. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Incidents were investigated and learning had been identified but there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate that this learning had been cascaded to relevant staff.

  • There were no practice specific standard operating procedures in place for the dispensary service offered by the practice; however medicine errors and near misses were being reported, analysed and lessons learnt embedded into practice.

  • We saw that national patient safety and medicine alerts were received, reviewed and actioned appropriately. However some staff were not aware of a recent alert and the documentation of initialling the alert once read; several alerts had one signature.

  • There was a bespoke standard operating procedure in place for the dispensary.

  • Infection control audits were undertaken and actions identified dealt with in a timely way.

  • Families who suffered bereavement received personalised follow up care from the GP that had most contact with the family in the last weeks of care.

  • 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 some evidence of quality improvement activity including clinical audit. However the conclusions of the audits did not identify where improvements could be made.

  • Patients were supported, treated with dignity and respect. Patients were encouraged and supported to be involved as partners in their care.

  • 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; however the lessons identified and actions to be taken were not sufficiently documented to ensure the improvements had ben actioned.

  • Patients said they were able to access the right care at the right time; appointments were managed to take account of patient’s needs, including those with urgent needs.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice had identified a low number of patients who were carers.
  • There was a system in place for infection control but issues identified as areas for improvement had not been actioned. There had been no infection control audit as required by guidance.
  • 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 good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure that the learning from the investigation of safety incidents and complaints is shared with relevant staff and documented.

  • Identify a lead staff member to oversee infection control.

  • Improve the identification of patients who are carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice