You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 15 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about West End Surgery on 15 November 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.

Inspection carried out on 23 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at West End Surgery on 23rd August 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 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.
  • Only 64% of patients said they could get through easily to the practice by phone compared to the national average of 73%.
  • Some 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. Other patients told us the telephone lines were busy in the mornings.
  • The practice had good facilities and was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. However there were areas of health and safety that needed improvement such as the calibration of one type of equipment.
  • 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review systems and processes to ensure that all clinical equipment is calibrated regularly.

  • To review the practice processes for identifying current smokers and giving advice on the benefits of stopping smoking
  • Improve the access to the practice for making appointments.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 17 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six patients, two GPs partners, one of the practice nurses and the practice management team. Patients we spoke with were all complimentary about the staff and surgery services. We found that although the practice was busy the majority of patients could get an appointment when they needed one, especially the same day. One patient said "I can always get an appointment and seen the same day especially when I�ve contacted the surgery that morning". Two patients told us their GP "was fantastic, best they had", another told us "the doctor listens to what I say" and "doctors are kind and polite".

Patients� views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. The provider took adequate steps to ensure patients were protected against the risks of receiving care or treatment that was inappropriate or unsafe. There were suitable arrangements in place for all staff to be able to recognise and report safeguarding concerns to the relevant person and authority.

Patients were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. Patients told us they thought the surgery was clean and tidy. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received and patients were able to comment about the services.

The provider followed a recruitment process on staff before they were employed to work with vulnerable patients and were able to demonstrate full references were requested.