The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Orchard Family Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Red Suite, Rainham Healthy Living Centre,103-107 High Street, Rainham, Kent, ME8 8AA (01634) 337620

Provided and run by:
Orchard Family Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Orchard Family Practice 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 Orchard Family Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

4 November 2022

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

The full comprehensive report can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Orchard Family Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we carried out this inspection:

We carried out an announced inspection at Orchard Family Practice on 4 November 2022 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

How we carried out the inspection:

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 was in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based 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.

Our findings:

We have rated this practice as Good overall.

  • The practice’s systems, practices and processes helped keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Risks to patients, staff and visitors were assessed, monitored and managed effectively.
  • The arrangements for managing medicines helped keep patients safe.
  • Published results showed uptake rates for childhood immunisations were above the target of 90% in four out of the five indicators.
  • Published results showed the practice was performing above local and England averages for cervical screening, as well as breast cancer screening and bowel cancer screening.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
  • Staff treated patients with kindness, respect as well as compassion and helped them to be involved in decisions about care and treatment.
  • Feedback about the practice from the national GP patient survey was positive and in line with or above local and England averages.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • There were processes to support good governance and management.
  • The practice involved patients, staff and external partners to help ensure they delivered high-quality and sustainable care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to ensure the practice’s computer system alerts staff of children on the risk register as well as all family and other household members of those children.
  • Continue with plans for designated fire marshals to receive relevant update training in January 2023.
  • Continue to act on and learn from all safety alerts.
  • Continue to monitor reviews of patients with long-term conditions to help ensure best practice guidance is followed at each review.
  • Continue to identify patients who are also carers to help ensure they have access to relevant care and support.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

10 November 2016

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 Drs Ferrin, Haworth and Sharief on 22 March 2016.

Breaches of the legal requirements were found, in that:

  • The practice did not have an effective system that identified notifiable safety incidents.
  • Staff did not always prescribe medicines in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • The practice did not have an adequate system to monitor the use of prescription forms and pads.
  • Information about how to complain was not made available to patients.

As a result, care and treatment was not always provided in a safe, responsive and well-led way for patients. Therefore, Requirement Notices were served in relation to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation12 - Safe care and treatment, Regulation 16 - Receiving and acting on complaints and Regulation 17 - Good governance.

Following the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to tell us what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting ‘all reports’ link for Drs Ferrin, Haworth and Sharief on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We undertook this focused inspection on 10 November 2016 to check that the practice had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an effective system that identified notifiable safety alerts and ensured that these were read by all relevant staff. The practice took action to address safety alerts that affected patients.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. The practice had taken action to address prescribing practice and could demonstrate improvements.
  • There was an effective system to monitor the use of blank prescription pads and forms.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.
  • There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk, including prescribing practice and the management of notifiable safety incidents.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

22 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs.Ferrin,Haworth and Quigley on 22 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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

  • There was an effective system for reporting and recording significant events and lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the practice. However, the practice did not have an effective system that identified and managed notifiable safety incidents adequately.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Blank prescription forms were stored securely. However, the practice did not have an adequate system to monitor their use.
  • Staff did not always prescribe medicines in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff had 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 was available and easy to understand. However, there was no detailed information available to help patients understand the complaints system.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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.
  • The practice had proactively sought feedback from patients and had an active patient participation group. Levels of patient satisfaction with the service they received from the practice were high.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure the practice has an effective system to identify and manage notifiable safety incidents.
  • Ensure all staff follow best practice guidance when prescribing medicines and that there is an adequate system to monitor blank prescription pads.
  • Make information to help patients understand the complaints procedure available in the practice.

In addition the provider should ensure that recent relevant safety alerts have been received, communicated to staff and actioned as appropriate and should review the care of all patients affected.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice