You are here

Dr S J Morris & Partners Good

Reports


Review carried out on 25 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr S J Morris & Partners on 25 October 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 07 Nov 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 6 March 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection April 2016- Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Requires improvement

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr S J Morris and Partners on 6 March 2018 as part of our regulatory functions.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice had reviewed and developed an innovative skill mix within the practice. For example, they employed three clinical pharmacists, one who specialised in the care of children and one whose role included visiting patients living in care homes.
  • Effective monitoring processes were in place, which included health and safety, training and appraisals however, during our inspection the practice was unable to provide evidence to support that an effective employee immunisation programme was in place. Specifically, evidence was not in place to demonstrate that relevant staff had been immunised against infectious diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines. Support and monitoring was in place for the clinical pharmacists and nursing staff, and the monitoring of the work undertaken by the trainee GPs was formalised and effective.

  • Arrangements for dispensing medicines at the practice kept patients safe.

  • Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. All staff had received equality and diversity training.
  • Information on the complaints process was available for patients at the practice and on the practice’s website. There was an effective process for responding to, investigating and learning from complaints.

  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles and there was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. Staff we spoke with felt supported by the practice.

  • The practice supported carers however, less than 1% of the practice’s registered patients had been identified as carers.

  • The practice was carrying out a trial for a waiting room co-ordinator who would meet, greet and signpost patients to reduce waiting times for some of the patients. The practice introduced an Emergency Assessment Team (EATs) which comprised of a practice nurse, a clinical pharmacist and the back up of a doctor to deal with any urgent cases on a daily basis.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure that an effective employee immunisation programme is in place so that staff working in general practice recieve the immunsiations that are appropriate for their role.
  • Continue to identify and support carers.
  • Follow a consistent process for monitoring and managing uncollected prescriptions in all areas of the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 14 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr S J Morris & Partners 14 April 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.
  • Some patients reported difficulty in getting appointments with a GP of their choice. The practice has introduced measures to improve access and were continuing with this work. Patients could access urgent and same day appointments with a duty GP.
  • 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Continue to monitor the effectiveness of recently implemented actions to improve patient satisfaction scores related to improving access to appointments and involving patients in decisions about their care.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice