We carried out a review of the data available to us about Parkside Surgery 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 Parkside Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Parkside surgery on 11 August 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. The practice was rated as good in all domains except for the ‘safe’ domain which was rated as ‘requires improvement’. We found breaches of legal requirements(regulations) relating to the safe domain. The full comprehensive report on the August 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Parkside surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 3 April 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 11 August 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.
Overall the practice is now rated as good.
Our key findings were as follows:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Parkside Surgery on 11 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. Effective systems were in place for reporting, recording and analysing significant events. Learning was shared within the practice to improve the service.
Risks to patients were assessed and mostly well managed; with the exception of disposal of out of date medicines and security of blank prescription forms.
A recruitment drive had been initiated to increase clinical staff capacity with some success. For example, an advanced nurse practitioner was due to commence their role in September 2016 and a GP partner was due to start in November 2016.
Following our inspection, we were informed the practice was not registering any new patients until January 2017 to enable the staff to focus on securing and sustaining improvements. This decision had been agreed with NHSE England and Southern Derbyshire clinical commissioning group.
Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. They had been supported with induction, training and appraisals to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
Nationally published data showed most patient outcomes were in line with or above local and national averages.
Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.
The practice team worked collaboratively with other health and social care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of people’s needs.
Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction about the care and services they received. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
Most patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
The practice had good facilities to treat patients and meet their needs.
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.
There was a clear vision in place and staff were engaged in developing the objectives and how the practice was run.
Staff felt supported by the management and were aware of the requirements of the duty of candour.
The practice had a patient participation group which was actively involved in patient education, fundraising activities and improving the services in liaison with practice staff and other stakeholders.
The PPG was proactive in promoting patient education, prevention and early identification of health needs; in collaboration with other stakeholders. For example, the PPG had facilitated the following community events:
A prostrate awareness evening was held at the local cricket club in January 2016, 21 people had attended. Guest speakers included a specialist eurology nurse from the local hospital, a representative from the North Nottinghamshire prostate cancer support group and a support worker from Maggie’s Trust (which provides free practical, emotional and social support to people with cancer and their family and friends positive feedback had been received from attendees).
An oral cancer awareness day was held in September 2014 in conjunction with other PPG committee members from practices across the town, a dental team and members of Alfreton Cancer Research. Patients had access to free oral screening and pocket sized size cards were given out with the early signs of oral cancer printed on them.
Ensure effective systems are in place to check the expiry dates and stock levels of all medicines.
Strengthen the measures in place to maintain the security of prescription forms.
Continue to review staffing levels for GPs to ensure sufficient cover is in place to meet patients’ needs.
Continue to strengthen the systems in place for recalling and reviewing patients to improve patient outcomes. This includes performance indicators for some long term conditions such as diabetes.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice
The provider told us systems had been put in place to ensure the appropriate recruitment checks were in place. They had introduced a written recruitment and selection policy and obtained any outstanding required recruitment information. They had also carried out risk assessments on long standing members of staff.
We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. Comments about the service included 'Brilliant,' 'Fantastic' and 'Every member of staff always has time for you.' Patients told us about the regular check-ups they received. One patient said 'Twice a year I have a diabetic check. They send me a letter and I phone to make an appointment.' Another told us 'I see the nurse regularly as I am trying to loose weight.'
Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from harm.
We saw that the provider did not have robust recruitment and selection procedures in place for newly recruited staff, and had not assessed the suitability of existing staff to work with patients and access confidential information.
The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system for regularly obtaining opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by the practice staff.