You are here

The Elizabeth Courtauld Partnership Good

Reports


Review carried out on 20 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Elizabeth Courtauld Partnership on 20 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 20/10/2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Elizabeth Courtauld Partnership on 20 October 2015.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well led services. It was also good for providing services for older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

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

  • Staff knew and carried out their duty to raise concerns, and to report safety incidents. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, and appropriately reviewed to identify trends or recurring themes.

  • Risks to patients were also assessed, well managed and reviewed to identify any trends or recurring themes.

  • Patients’ needs were considered and care was planned and provided in a way that reflected both best practice and recommended current clinical guidance.

  • Staff had received the necessary training appropriate for their roles and further training had been encouraged, recognised and planned for through the practice appraisal system.

  • Patients told us they were treated well with consideration, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Some patients we spoke with on the day did tell us they had problems getting through on the phone.

  • Information regarding how to complain about the practice was available to patients and easy to understand.

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

  • The practice was adequately equipped to treat patients and meet their requirements.

  • The practice had a well-established Patient Participation Group (PPG) that supported the practice with their opinions regarding suggestions for practice changes.

  • There was a well-defined leadership structure and all the staff members we spoke with told us they felt supported in their working roles.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice healthcare assistant (HCA) provided a free GP referred nail clipping service for patients. The practice had investigated the need and the alternative local service was expensive for many older people.

  • One of the GPs at the practice has undertaken further training in substance misuse, and provided a service for patients with this need in the practice. Patients were assessed and stabilised on treatment by the substance misuse teams at secondary care (hospital), then care was transferred to the practice. The GP with further training continued to monitor, screen urine and prescribe for these patients. This avoided them having to undertake the long journeys by public transport to secondary care services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice