You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 16 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Creffield Medical Group on 16 November 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 02 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Creffield Medical Centre on 02 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as Good.

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

  • Staff knew how to raise concerns and report safety incidents. Safety information was recorded, monitored, and reviewed to identify trends or recurrent themes. When safety events occurred they were investigated and any issues identified were shared with all staff members.

  • Risks to patients were well managed. The system for assessing risks included those associated with; premises, equipment, medicines, and infection control.

  • Patient care was planned and provided to reflect best practice and recommended current clinical guidance.

  • Staff had received appropriate training for their roles and further training had been encouraged, recognised and planned.

  • Information regarding how to complain was available at the practice and on the practice website.

  • The practice staff members had received training regarding the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults, and knew who to contact with any concerns.

  • The practice was suitably equipped to treat patients and meet their requirements. The equipment had been checked and maintained to ensure it was safe to use.

  • Patient comments were positive when we spoke with them during the inspection. Members of the virtual practice patient participation group were proactive and keen to be involved with practice development.

  • The clinical staff met daily to ensure comprehensive quality peer support for the team.

  • The leadership structure at the practice was well-established and all the staff members we spoke with said they felt supported in their working roles by both the practice manager and the GPs.

However we found an area where the practice should improve;

  • Continue to implement an effective system to identify patients who are carers and provide them with support.

We also saw an area of outstanding practice:

The practice provided space within their reception area for exercise classes aimed at their more active elderly patients. This weekly exercise class that was organised by the Patient Participation Group (PPG) was aimed to improve people’s balance and help reduce falls. The practice also supported the PPG to organise and arrange tea parties for patients identified as alone. From single people within the older people’s population, to single mothers within the families, children and young people population group to meet and talk with others in similar circumstances for support, company and conversation.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 04 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Creffield Medical Centre is a six partner medical practice located in a residential area of Colchester. The practice provides primary medical services for approximately 12,000 patients living in Colchester and the surrounding area. The practice is established as a GP training practice.

Creffield Medical Centre is operated by six partners, one salaried general practitioner (GP), four GP registrars (trainee GPs), a practice manager, four practice nurses, two nursing assistants, a phlebotomistand administration staff. It has strong relationships with the community nursing staff, health visitors and midwives.

The regulated activities we inspected were diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Patients and relatives made positive comments about their experience of using the practice, the treatment they received and their involvement in this.

Patients told us that clinical and reception staff were pleasant, helpful and any issues were dealt with in a timely manner. All patients we spoke with, and those who completed our comment cards, told us that they were treated with dignity and respect. They said that their treatments were explained fully and their consent was obtained before treatment started.

We found that the practice provided effective treatment based on relevant guidelines. The practice was responsive to the changing needs of their patient population.

There were robust systems in place ensuring that patients were treated safely and that risks to their health, safety and welfare were recognised and well managed. There were systems for recognising patients who may be vulnerable, and for considering how to best treat and monitor these patients so as to ensure that they received safe and effective care and treatment.

There was an open culture within the practice which encouraged staff and patients to report incidents, concerns and to make comment on how the service could be improved. Patients and staff we spoke with told us that their comments were well received. They told us that changes had been made to improve the service and patients experience where suggestions had been made.

The practice was well managed. Staff we spoke with were aware of the leadership arrangements and individual team member’s roles and responsibilities. The practice used a variety of clinical and non-clinical audits to improve the outcomes for patients across all population groups.