The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Red House Partnership

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Red House Surgery, 96 Chesterton Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB4 1ER (01223) 365555

Provided and run by:
The Red House Partnership

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 Red House Partnership 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 Red House Partnership, you can give feedback on this service.

24 March 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr R Salmon & Partners on 24 March 2022 to follow up on the concerns identified at the inspection on 26 February 2020. We looked at the key questions, Safe, Effective and Well-led.


We undertook this inspection at the same time as CQC inspected a range of urgent and emergency care services in Peterborough and Cambridge. To understand the experience of GP providers and people who use GP services, we asked a range of questions in relation to urgent and emergency care. The responses we received have been used to inform and support system wide feedback.


Overall, the practice is rated as Good.


We rated the key questions as follows:
Safe - Good
Effective - Good
Well-led - Good


• We carried out a comprehensive inspection on 9 April 2015 and the practice was rated as good in all domains.
• We then carried out an annual review of the practice in August 2019, using 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.
• As a result of this, we carried out a focused inspection on 26 February 2020, looking at the key questions of Effective and Well-led. The practice was rated good overall and requires improvement for providing effective services.
• This inspection was carried out to address the concerns from the inspection on 26 February 2020.


The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr R Salmon & Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk


Why we carried out this inspection
This inspection was a focused follow-up inspection to follow up on the concerns from the previous inspection which included a rating of requires improvement for the key question, Effective. We inspected the key questions, Safe, Effective
and Well-led. We also looked at whether the provider had acted on the areas where we advised they should improve.


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 with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.


This included:
• Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
• Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
• Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
• Requesting evidence from the provider
• A short site visit
• Staff feedback questionnaires via email.


Our findings


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
We found that:
• The concerns from the previous inspection had been addressed. However, we did not inspect specific population groups due to requirements being modified by NHS England as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, so we were unable
to compare exception reporting rates.
• The practice continued to be proactive in improving the uptake of breast and cervical screening in the context of a very transient practice population.
• The childhood immunisation uptake rate was above the 90% World Health Organisation target rate for all five immunisations.
• The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.


Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:
• Continue to monitor and improve the uptake of breast and cervical screening rates.
• Continue to monitor and improve the systems and processes for medicines management.


Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

26 February 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This practice is rated as Good overall. The practice had a comprehensive inspection on 9 April 2015 and was rated as good in all domains.

We carried out an inspection of this service 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:

Are services at this location effective?

Are services at this location well-led?

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.
  • Information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall.

At this inspection, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing effective services because the population groups of people with long-term conditions, families children and young people and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) were rated as requires improvement. These population groups were rated as requires improvement because:

  • We found the practice had a higher Quality Outcomes Framework exception reporting rate for all long-term condition indicators; some of which were significantly higher than the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and England averages. The practice was aware of this data and had introduced changes. However, there was no validated data available to reflect that improvements had been made.
  • We found the practice had a higher Quality Outcomes Framework exception reporting rate for all mental health indicators; some of which were significantly higher than the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and England averages. The practice was aware of this data and had introduced changes. However, there was no validated data available to reflect that improvements had been made,
  • The practice’s childhood immunisation uptake rate was below the 90% World Health Organisation target rate for two out of four immunisations at 74.3% and 89.5%. The practice was aware of this data and had introduced changes. However, there was no validated data available to reflect that improvements had been made,

In addition to this, the population group of working age people was rated as inadequate because:

  • The practice’s cervical screening uptake was significantly lower than the 80% Public Health England target rate at 46.6%. The practice was aware of this data and had introduced changes. However, there was no validated data available to reflect that improvements had been made.
  • The practice’s breast and bowel cancer screening uptakes were lower than the CCG and England averages.

At this inspection, the practice was rated as Good for providing well-led services because:

  • Leaders demonstrated that they understood the challenges to quality and sustainability, and we were assured that actions had been taken to address these challenges. However more time was required to evidence the changes had improved people’s outcomes.
  • Some areas of the practice performance such as those shown in the QOF data, childhood immunisations and cancer screening had decreased from 2017/2018. The practice leaders had demonstrated they had reviewed this data, implemented action plans and ensured systems and processes were in place to drive improvements.
  • Of the practice population, 6,643 (30%) were registered as students at the local university. The provider and staff had an understanding of the requirements of students and worked collaboratively, both internally and externally, to improve pathways of care for students.
  • Staff told us they felt well supported by the leadership team who were visible and approachable.
  • Members of the Patient Participation Group (PPG) told us they felt involved and that the practice acted on their input and views.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to monitor and improve exception reporting for long term conditions and mental health indicators.
  • Continue to monitor and improve the practice’s cervical screening, breast and bowel cancer screening uptake rate.
  • Continue to monitor and improve the uptake of childhood immunisations.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

9 April 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr R Salmon & Partners on 6 April 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for older people, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired), people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people

with dementia).

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Practice staff were kind and caring and treated patients with dignity and respect.
  • The practice was safe for both patients and staff. Robust procedures helped to identify risks and where improvements could be made
  • The clinical staff at the practice provided effective consultations, care and treatment in line with recommended guidance.
  • Services provided met the needs of all population groups.
  • The practice had strong visible leadership and staff were involved in the vision of providing high quality healthcare.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned for.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice