You are here

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 Orchard Surgery 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 Orchard Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 18 March 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Orchard Surgery on 18 March 2020. 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 12 September 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Orchard Surgery on 29 September 2016. At this inspection the overall rating for the practice was good. The four domains of safe, responsive, caring and well led were rated as good. One domain, effective, was rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the September 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Orchard Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 12 September 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 in September 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 in all domains and good overall.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Staff had received training appropriate to their role. The practice had improved training records and the oversight of training. All staff had completed fire safety awareness, infection control and information governance training. All staff had been provided with guidance to identify and locate adults at risk alerts on the practice computer system.
  • The practice had completed infection prevention control audits in order to continually assess cleanliness and address concerns. Blinds and carpets had been regularly cleaned. A cleaning schedule and regular management reviews ensured monitoring of cleaning was undertaken.
  • The practice had completed Disclosure and Barring Scheme (DBS) checks for all non-clinical staff who were trained as chaperones. All clinical staff had received a DBS check as standard practice.
  • The practice had introduced improvements in the recording of appraisals which enhanced the management of the process.
  • The practice ensured that all policies and procedures were dated at the time of writing and last review.
  • The practice had reviewed the locations of emergency equipment and medicines.
  • The practice had reviewed the appointment system with consideration of patient comments regarding not being given sufficient time to make decisions about their care and appointments not running on time. Extended time appointments were now offered by the practice and advertised to patients by staff and on displays in waiting areas.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 29 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Orchard Surgery on 29 September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. The 40 patient comment cards we received and 10 patients we spoke with on the day of the inspection all stated they were happy with the care and treatment they received.
  • 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. Most staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. However, we found gaps in training for fire safety awareness, infection control and information governance training.
  • 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 urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. This included automatic doors and a lift. The practice also had disabled facilities, baby changing facilities, a hearing loop and translation services were also available.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported. 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 long-standing patient participation group, which was active and had made a number of improvements to the practice and ensured regular communication with the patients.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure all staff receive training appropriate to their role and continue to improve records and oversight of training. Including that all staff complete fire safety awareness, infection control and information governance training.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure that all staff are provided with guidance to identify and locate adults at risk alerts on the practice computer system.

  • Continue to make assessments of cleanliness and address concerns, including that blinds and carpets are regularly cleaned. Continue to record and monitor cleaning undertaken.
  • Consider completing a risk assessment or an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Scheme (DBS) check for all non-clinical staff who are trained as chaperones.
  • Consider improvements to the recording of appraisals to enhance the management of the process.
  • Ensure all practice policies and procedures are dated at the time of writing and last review.
  • Review the locations of emergency equipment and medicines.
  • Review the practice appointment system with consideration of patient comments regarding not being given sufficient time to make decisions about their care and appointments not running on time.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice