The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Roslea Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

51 Station Road, Bamber Bridge, Preston, Lancashire, PR5 6PE (01772) 339733

Provided and run by:
Roslea 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 Roslea 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 Roslea Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

12 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Roslea Surgery on 12 July 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.

13 July 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 Roslea Surgery on 23 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good with the key question of safe rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found on our website at

http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-554172576

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 13 July 2017. This was 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 23 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • At the inspection in November 2016 we found that the practice had not addressed the risks associated with an infection control audit carried out in January 2016. The audit had highlighted some issues related to the cleaning of the premises and to the disrepair of some flooring and wall tiles. It had also highlighted that some patient blood tests were being undertaken in a carpeted room. At this desk-based review we saw evidence that the practice had replaced damaged flooring in those areas identified by the audit, including the laying of clinically-acceptable flooring to replace the carpet where patient blood tests were carried out. We also saw evidence that the practice had recruited the services of a cleaning company and we saw audits of their work that had been undertaken.
  • At our previous inspection, we identified that the surgery did not have a legionella risk assessment for the building (legionella is a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings). For this inspection, the practice provided evidence to show that a legionella risk assessment had been conducted and that the practice was in the process of seeking professional guidance as to how identified risks could be mitigated.
  • At the inspection in November 2016 we saw that there had been no health and safety risk assessments completed for people using the building. We saw that the practice had since produced these risk assessments and had audited all areas of risk.
  • In November 2016 we saw that there had been no fire risk assessment carried out for the building and that there were no weekly tests of the fire alarm or documented checks of escape routes and emergency lighting. The practice supplied evidence at this inspection to show that there had been a fire risk assessment carried out on 3 July 2017 together with weekly documented fire alarm tests and a fire evacuation check.
  • At our previous inspection, we saw that the practice did not have a practice specific policy for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. At this desk-based review, we saw evidence of this policy which we were told was available to all staff and stored on the practice computer.
  • At the inspection in November, we found that the practice was not actively identifying patients who were carers. Following this inspection, the practice sent us evidence that they had reviewed the process of identifying carers and that the number of carers on the practice register had increased from 25 to 287 (3.4% of the practice list).


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

23/11/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Roslea Surgery on 23 November 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 and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients 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 practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • 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.
  • Not all risks to patients were assessed and well managed. For example, there was no fire risk assessment or regular routine fire checks.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice employed an advanced nurse practitioner who worked collaboratively between three practices. They visited all the residential and nursing homes in the area weekly and also carried out emergency visits. All patients in the care homes had a personalised care plan that was regularly updated and also included information about their end of life care wishes. The practice was compiling data and indications were that hospital admissions had reduced.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • The provider must do what is reasonably practicable to assess, monitor, manage and mitigate risks to the health and safety of service users. This includes carrying out health and safety, fire and legionella risk assessments, carrying out regular fire safety checks and taking appropriate action following infection control audits.

In addition the provider should:

  • The provider should have a practice specific policy for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

  • The provider should actively identify carers so appropriate care can be provided.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice