You are here


Review carried out on 6 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Holland House Surgery on 6 August 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 16 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Holland House Surgery, Victoria Street, Lytham St Annes, Lancashire FY8 5DZ on 16 January 2017. 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example; all staff were dementia friends. The practice worked closely with the Alzheimer’s society and other organisations to support patients and their carers. For example, the practice staff took part in a dementia sing-a-long and a dementia walk to raise awareness of the condition and raise funds. The patient participation group (PPG) were proactive in providing training for staff and patients to become dementia friends at the time of the inspection there were 503 dementia friends linked to the practice and the local community.

Where patients living with a learning disability were anxious about going to the GPs they were able to go into the practice as often as they wished to sit and familiarise themselves with the activities and sounds associated with the waiting room within the practice. Staff at the practice told us this had worked well to reduce the patients anxiety.

The practice employed a musculoskeletal (MSK) practitioner who specialised in assessing acute injuries with the aim of preventing them becoming longterm. The MSK practitioner also supported patients with chronic health conditions to help them to minimise the use of medicines.

There was an on site x-ray facility which provided same day access and reduced the need for patients to travel to the hospital.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Improve the recording of significant events to demonstrate actions and learning and to identify trends more easily.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 14 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During the time we spent at the practice we spoke to a number of people about the service. We spoke with seven patients either before or after their treatment, two GP�s, the practice manager, the nurse practitioner, a medical secretary and three administration/reception staff. We also spoke to the commissioning department of NHS England. This was in order to gain a balanced overview of what patients experienced using this practice.

Patients spoke highly of the way they were treated by staff and were happy with the treatment and support shown to them. Comments from patients included, "It's a very friendly practice. The staff are excellent.� And, "I have been with the practice all my life, I have never experienced any problems."

Patients we spoke with felt they were given enough information about treatment options. One patient said, "The service has been absolutely fabulous. The doctor explained everything.�

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured patient's safety and welfare. We spoke with the doctors and nursing staff regarding the assessment of patients and looked at documents used. Patients confirmed that they felt confident that the doctors and nursing staff understood their condition.

The provider carried out a satisfaction survey and had a patient participation group which enabled them to monitor the quality of the service provided.