The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Stock Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Common Road, Stock, Ingatestone, Essex, CM4 9NF (01277) 289400

Provided and run by:
Stock 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 Stock Surgery 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 Stock Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

31 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Stock Surgery on 31 July 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.

28/04/2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Stock Surgery on 28 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. Information about safety was monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. Learning from when things went wrong was shared with staff through meetings and discussions.
  • There were systems in place for assessing risks associated with medicines, premises, equipment and infection control.
  • The practice had processes in place for monitoring dispensed medicines that were not collected from the pharmacy, particularly where patients had been identified as experiencing poor mental health.
  • 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. They were complimentary about the dedication of the doctors and nurses at the surgery.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available.

  • The practice contributed monthly to a charity called ‘Stock cares.’ This service provided transport to medical appointments for patients who required support.

  • 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 implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group.

  • The premises were purpose built and maintained to an acceptable standard throughout the clinical areas. Access for disabled people was in place including parking for the disabled and washroom facilities.
  • 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:

  • Improve the system for the identification of patients who are carers and provide them with appropriate support and guidance.

  • Ensure verbal complaints are recorded to achieve wider learning.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice