The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Grove House Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

West Shepton, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 5UH (01749) 342314

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

23 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection September 2016 – Good)

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Grove House Surgery on 23 October 2019, following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on the following key questions: Effective, Responsive and Well-led and because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions: Safe and Caring.

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups.

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 have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • Improvement areas identified during our last inspection (2016) had been addressed.
  • Appropriate action had been taken relating to statutory notifications received since last inspection.
  • Systems were in place to ensure clinicians remained up to date with current best practice. For example, monthly training sessions.
  • The practice encouraged involvement in care and treatment decision making. For example, through treatment escalation plans and long-term chronic conditions self-management plans.
  • Patient feedback was very positive about the care and treatment received.
  • The practice was proactive in finding solutions to challenges they faced, such as implementing a work flow optimisation project.
  • There was a stable leadership team which was inclusive and responsive to staff feedback.
  • The leadership team had fully engaged with the local primary care network to drive improvements within the practice.

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

  • Continue to embed overview systems and processes to ensure current and future performance indicators are effectively managed as part of the transition from the Providers current system to the National Quality Outcomes Framework.
  • Continue to review action plans to improve uptake of cervical screening and childhood immunisations

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care.

11 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Grove House Surgery on 11 February 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. Opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example, the practice was piloting a Medication Safety Alert scheme for Somerset.
  • 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.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Patients told us that staff went the extra mile and the care that they received exceeded their expectations.
  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet patients’ needs. For example, the practice was using the recently published Public Health Profile to identify future priorities; and was actively using the services of Health Connectors to meet social as well as clinical needs of patients.
  • 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. However, due to clinical staffing levels it was more difficult to book routine appointments in a timely way or to provide continuity of care.
  • 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.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • Patients were advised and supported to access a wide a range of self-help, social prescribing and community based schemes.
  • The practice had identified more patients who acted as carers than was typically achieved. A member of staff acted as a carers’ champion to help ensure that the various services supporting carers were coordinated and effective.
  • We saw positive patient feedback from a variety of sources, including The Friends and Family Test, indicating better than average satisfaction across several areas of activity.
  • The practice had developed in house counselling services to address waiting times for NHS services and provide longer term support.
  • The practice had streamlined diabetes care including patient recall and appointment arrangements that allowed patients to focus on priorities.

The areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Review emergency medicines to ensure all appropriate medicines are available.
  • Review clinical capacity and the arrangements for appointments to reduce reliance on locums and increase the available number of pre-bookable appointments.
  • Review the security of patient records.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice