We carried out a review of the data available to us about Elgar House 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 Elgar House, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out a focussed inspection at Elgar House following an Annual Regulatory Review of the practice. During this inspection we looked at the responsive, effective and well-led key questions. The practice was previously inspected in October 2018.
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 .The population groups have been rated good with the exception of working age people which we rated as requires improvement. The reason for rating the practice requires improvement in this population group was due to the practice not being able to demonstrate that the actions that they had taken to improve uptake of cervical screening had yet had an impact.
We found:
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 organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
The practice had a focus on learning and improvement.
The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
The provider should:
Continue to encourage the uptake for cervical screening.
Continue to encourage the uptake for childhood immunisations.
Continue to monitor and act on the results of the patient survey particularly in response to access to the service.
Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.
Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care
This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating January 2015 – Good)
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
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Elgar House on 2 October 2018 as part of our inspection programme.
At this inspection we found:
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We inspected this service on 4 November 2014 as part of our new comprehensive inspection programme.
The overall rating for this service is good. We found the practice to be good in the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led domains. We found the practice provided good care to older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, the working age population and those recently retired, people in vulnerable circumstances and people experiencing poor mental health.
Our key findings were as follows:
We saw an area of outstanding practice including:
However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
In addition the provider should:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to. One patient told us: "Yes I give consent. I am quite trusting of them and go along with what they recommend". We found that when minor surgery had been carried out that consent had been requested from patients before the surgery had commenced.
We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. The patients we spoke with provided positive feedback about their care. A patient told us: "We get excellent care". Patients received their medicines when they needed them and their medicines were regularly reviewed.
Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from harm.
The premises were suitable for their intended purpose. We found that they were clean, organised, had been well maintained and appropriate for patients with restricted mobility.
The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system to regularly obtain opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by the practice staff.