You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sutton Manor Surgery on 7 October 2021. 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 Sutton Manor Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 24 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Sutton Manor Surgery on 24 January 2020. 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 27 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sutton Manor Surgery on May 27 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and 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.
  • 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.
  • There was continuity of care, with 50 urgent appointments available throughout the week although the practice faced challenges in meeting demand for appointments.
  • 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 two areas of outstanding practice:

  • There was a consistent focus on reducing the risk of social isolation in patients who were vulnerable, had mental health needs or whose age restricted their access to social activities. This included supporting patients to access a local time bank and a back to work scheme. Both schemes supported patients to reduce social isolation and to build the skills needed to rejoin the workforce. A weekly 'social prescribing' session enabled patients to access a counsellor who could signpost them to local social activity groups as a strategy to reduce isolation.
  • The practice employed a pharmacist to provide a rapid response to patient questions about medication, to improve the management of repeat prescriptions and to provide oversight of the practice prescribing formulary.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice