The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Moore and Partners Also known as Stoke Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4 Stoke Road, Bishops Cleeve, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 8RP (01242) 672007

Provided and run by:
Stoke Road Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Moore and Partners 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 Dr Moore and Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

9 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Moore and Partners on 9 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.

22 August 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Moore and Partners on 7 July 2016. Overall the practice was rated as good. We found the practice to be requires improvement for providing safe services, and good for providing effective, caring, responsive and well led services. The full comprehensive report on the 7 July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Moore and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 22 August 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations we identified in our previous inspection on 7 July 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

We have amended the rating for this practice to reflect these changes. The practice is now rated good for the provision of safe services. Overall the practice remains rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had reviewed its recruitment process to ensure all information in relation to staff employment was available, including proof of identity for staff.

  • The practice had engaged an external contractor to carry out a legionella risk assessment. Legionella is a term for particular bacteria which can contaminate water systems in buildings.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

7th July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Moore and Partners on 7th July 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.
  • 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.
  • As a result of patient feedback the practice provided appointments during extended hours, introduced the triaging of phone calls by a GP, adjusted clinic times and changed staff rotas to have more receptionists on the phone at busy times. The practice also set up routine sit and wait services at the practice to provide flexibility with GP appointments.
  • Clinical staff were also trained about dermatology problems which led to several cases where a health care assistant had noticed a skin lesion which then was reviewed by a GP and in many cases was found to be a skin cancer which the patient had not noticed.

The area where the provider have shown outstanding practice is:

  • The practice’s prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was above the England average and had a higher than average proportion of patients with AF on anticoagulation medicines. The practice’s screening process was presented at regional and national meetings as an example of excellent practice.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • The practice must have a system in place to identify and control the risks from exposure to Legionella in man-made water systems. (Legionella is a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings).

  • The practice must have all information available in relation to each such person employed, including staff’s proof of identity including a recent photograph.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During our announced inspection we were able to speak with five patients, the chairman of the patient participation group and three members of staff. We also reviewed documents held by the provider. The practice had a very active and effective patient participation group (PPG). We spoke with the chairman of the PPG who told us 'we are confident and competent at challenging the practice".

We saw evidence that people's privacy and dignity were respected. We also saw through the patient survey that the practice scored very positively in the care and treatment provided to patients. The scores were less positive regarding access to appointments. However, the surgery and the PPG were aware of the issues and looking at ways to address them and improve the experience for patients.

Medicines were dealt with appropriately and by trained staff. The provider also had robust safeguarding procedures in place. The five patients we spoke with all had very positive comments about the staff and the care they had received. The comments included 'everyone is wonderful, I am so lucky with this practice'. 'I generally get an appointment when I need one, but the facilities here are very good, and the staff are very professional and friendly'. 'I would certainly recommend this surgery to people, sometimes the clinics might run late, but I know that the doctor will give me as much time as I need'.