• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Manor Way Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Manor Way Surgery Suite B, Lee On The Solent, Hampshire, PO13 9JG (023) 9255 3161

Provided and run by:
Manor Way Surgery

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

6 June 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 Manor Way Surgery on 20 July 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Manor Way Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 6 June 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 20 July 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:

  • The practice had suitable governance arrangements and systems for assessing and monitoring risks and the quality of the service provision. This included management of high risk medicines; prescriptions; and clinical audits.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity and held regular governance meetings.

  • There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • Training had been provided to ensure all staff were trained to the appropriate level for their role.

  • Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and contained relevant and current information.

  • All patients with a learning disability were offered and had had appropriate health assessments.

  • Arrangements for translation purposes had been reviewed to minimise the use of family or friends as translators, unless this was the patients’ wishes.

  • The patient participation group was active and further ways of reaching out to patients had been put into place to gather feedback.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Manor Way Surgery on 20 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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

  • Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe.
  • For example there was an absence of a monitoring system for patients prescribed with medicines that required additional blood tests.
  • Patient outcomes were hard to identify as little or no reference was made to audits or quality improvement and there was limited evidence that the practice was comparing its performance to others; either locally or nationally.
  • The practice did not have a clear overarching governance framework to support the delivery of the strategy for good quality care. There were limited arrangements for the management of a programme of clinical audit and the management of governance of nurses delivering ,minor illness clinics. Although some reviews had been carried out, we saw limited evidence that audits were driving improvements to patient outcomes.
  • Patients were positive about their interactions with staff and said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • 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 a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are: 

  • Implement formal governance arrangements including systems for assessing and monitoring risks and the quality of the service provision. For example implement a system to manage and monitor patients on high risk medicines.
  • Manage and monitor the governance arrangements in which prescriptions are generated for patients medicines in the absence of suitable prescribing qualifications, particularly during the nurse minor illness assessment clinic process.
  • Ensure a programme of quality improvement and clinical audits is implemented to effectively monitor patient outcomes.
  • Ensure all patients have access to appropriate health assessments and checks, particularly for patients with learning difficulties.

In addition the provider should:

  • Review the use of patient friends and relatives for translation purposes in order to preserve confidentiality.
  • Review the development of a more active Patient Participation Group to increase patient engagement, encouraging surveys and feedback.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

22 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At this inspection we spoke with the practice manager and the deputy practice manager. We reviewed the action plan that had been sent to us. The practice manager explained that the action plan had been fully completed. We were able to see the changes put in place by the provider to improve the services provided to the patients.

10, 11 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven people who used the service, and with clinical and non-clinical staff. We were not able to speak with the practice manager on the day of our inspection, but we did speak with the registered manager and six members of staff.

People we spoke with were positive about the service they received. People told us that the staff were caring, respectful and polite. One person told us, 'I can't fault them, I've always been satisfied'. People said that during consultations the GPs explained issues and answered questions in a way that they could understand. One person told us that the GP, 'Listened to my problems and discussed treatment with me so I could make my own decisions'.

People received care that ensured their safety and welfare. People were assessed and care was provided to meet their individual needs. Systems were followed to ensure people with longstanding conditions were monitored and treatment provided as required.

The surgery was clean and tidy. However there was no system followed to assess the effectiveness of infection control practices. This meant that the surgery could not fully ensure the risk to people from health care associated infections were minimised.

The provider ensured that people who used the service were cared and treated by staff who had relevant training.

The quality of the service was monitored by the use of surveys and by taking into account complaints received about the service. Changes to the running of the service, such as implementing a telephone triage service, was implemented as a result of concerns identified with people obtaining emergency appointments with the GP.