The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Glebe House Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

19 Firby Road, Bedale, North Yorkshire, DL8 2AT (01677) 422616

Provided and run by:
Glebe House Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Glebe House 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 Glebe House Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

6, 10 and 12 October 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Glebe House Surgery on 6, 10 and 12 October 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring – Not rated

Responsive – Not rated

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 5 November 2015, the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Glebe House Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.

How we carried out the inspection/review

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing and obtaining feedback from staff using electronic questionnaires.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There were adequate systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety with embedded systems in place to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. Regular multi-disciplinary working was evident.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care. There were high levels of satisfaction across all staff. Staff spoke highly of the culture and the compassion of leaders
  • There was evidence of systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Improve the system for gathering and maintaining a record of staff vaccinations.
  • Take action to ensure all The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency MHRA alerts are appropriately acted on.
  • Take steps to review the backlog of patient records to be summarised and improve the system for overseeing this.
  • Improve the process for reviewing, overseeing and auditing the nurse prescriber’s prescribing.
  • Improve the oversight arrangements of practice audits.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

5 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Glebe House Surgery on 5 November 2015.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
  • All staff were actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes. The continuing development of staff skills, competence and knowledge was recognised as integral to ensuring high-quality care.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patient’s satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was mixed. The data was mostly above the national average but mostly below the CCG average in this area. People we spoke with on the day were able to get appointments although some said it was difficult to get through on the telephone and waiting times for pre-arranged appointments was sometimes lengthy, up to 45 minutes.
  • Extended hours surgeries were offered by one or two GPs two evenings per week from 6.30pm to 8pm, normally on Mondays or Thursday or on occasion the extended hours take place on other weekdays or a Saturday.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group (PPG). For example, the PPG had been influential in arranging for the installation of new more accessible front door. The group had also published an information leaflet including how to book an appointment and how to order repeat prescriptions. The two PPG members we met with told us the practice listened and acted.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. 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.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice provided numerous in house services and tests that would normally be undertaken in hospital as part of locally negotiated ‘out of hospital services bundle’. These services meant patients could be treated closer to home and this was of significant benefit to the patients.
  • The practice demonstrated their commitment to working collaboratively, and they explored and implemented innovative and efficient ways to deliver more joined up care to people who used services. A recent example of this was the work the practice had carried out as part of the Primary Care Nursing Development Project (nursing project). The aim of the project was to develop primary care nursing, improve access of housebound patients to services and break down barriers between practice, community and nursing home nurses.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure systems are in place to reduce patient waiting times for pre-booked appointments.
  • Review access to appointments via the telephone system.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice