The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Abingdon Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

65 Stert Street, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3LB (01235) 523126

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

5 June 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Abingdon Surgery on 5 June 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.

16 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Abingdon Surgery on 16 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good. Specifically it is rated as outstanding for the provision of responsive services and good for provision of safe, effective, caring and well led services.

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 demonstrated a commitment to reporting any incidents and near misses and described the practice as having a no blame culture.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and were generally well managed.
  • 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.
  • The practice registered patients with mental health problems who resided at a local hostel. This facility provided five places for people who required short term following discharge from hospital. Staff supported these patients for all their physical and social needs to assist them in settling into the community.
  • Feedback from patients was consistently positive in regard to being treated with compassion, dignity and respect. Patients told us they benefitted from continuity of care arising from the GPs operating a personal list system. Patients commented that their care often exceeded their expectations.
  • Feedback from patients was strong in regard to their involvement 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 their named GP and there was continuity of care. Routine appointments were available within two days and urgent appointments available the same day. Patient feedback was consistently positive in regard to accessing the practice and obtaining appointments with GPs and nurses on days and times that suited their needs.
  • 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.
  • The practice worked closely with the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) (A CCG is a group of general practices that work together to plan and design local health services in England. They do this by 'commissioning' or buying health and care services). For example they had obtained funding to appoint a clinical pharmacist to expand the range of services offered at the practice.

  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve responsive patient outcomes. It worked with other local providers to reduce the number of visits patients made to hospital clinics. For example, using e-mails and photographs to communicate and consult with specialists at the local hospital.

  • The practice also used e-mail for some consultations with patients. We saw examples of this service benefitting patients.

We saw areas of outstanding responsive practice:

  • The practice employed their own care navigator to assist patients with complex needs in accessing appropriate services and support organisations.

  • The practice appointment system, coupled with a firm commitment to patients seeing their named GP, enabled patients to obtain routine appointments within two working days.

  • A variety of extended hours clinics were available to assist patients who were unable to attend during normal surgery opening hours. Clinics ran until 8.30pm on two evenings each week and every Saturday morning from 8am to 11.30am.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review the role of the PPG to ensure it meets the needs of the registered patients and the practice.

  • Review the annual health checks for patients with a learning disability to increase the uptake and increase the number of care plans for this group of patients.

  • Maintain records of the discussions at the practice nurse team meetings.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

6 March 2014

During a routine inspection

During our visit to The Abingdon Surgery we met with the registered manager and the practice manager. We spoke with seven patients and with five members of staff.

Patients were involved in their treatment and offered choices when appropriate. One patient told us their GP had suggested 'you can either carry on with the pills, try an injection or go to hospital'.

Patients received treatment that took account of their safety and welfare. A patient told us 'I get reminded that my medicines need to be reviewed'. We saw that the practice had a policy for reviewing medicines.

The premises were maintained to ensure patient safety and were kept clean and tidy. Corridors used by patients were free from obstruction and were well lit.

Staff were supported and received training appropriate to their roles and responsibilities. Members of staff we spoke with told us that they were given time each week to keep their training up-to-date using an online training package.

The practice had systems in place to seek and act on patient feedback and carried out audits to monitor clinical quality. Action was taken if patients identified an issue with the service they received. For example, the practice was waiting for extra telephone lines to be installed to give patients faster access to book their appointments.