The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Linden Hall Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Station Road, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 7EN (01952) 820400

Provided and run by:
Linden Hall Surgery

All Inspections

17/10/22

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive at Linden Hall Surgery on 17 October 2022 Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - requires improvement

Effective - good

Caring - good

Responsive - good

Well-led - good

Following our previous inspection on 14 July 2016, the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Linden Hall Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection due to the length of time the practice was previously rated. We assessed all key questions.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit to the main site and the Muxton branch practice.
  • Staff feedback questionnaires.

Our findings

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 found that:

  • Recruitment checks were not always carried out in accordance with regulations.
  • Not all health and safety risks had been assessed and appropriate actions taken.
  • Vaccines were appropriately stored but not monitored effectively to ensure they remained safe and effective.
  • Not all staff were up to date with training in safe working practices.
  • Not all medical alerts had been acted on.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. The uptake rates of breast and bowel cancer screening were above the local and national averages.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way. The practice achieved higher than local and national averages for providing responsive services within the national patient survey.
  • Patients were very positive about the service. All four indicators from the national GP survey for providing caring services were above the local and national averages. Ninety eight point nine percent of respondents to the GP patient survey stated that during their last GP appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We found one breach of regulations. The provider must:

Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients

The provider should:

  • Continue to improve cervical cancer screening uptake and childhood immunisations for those aged five years.
  • Improve the quality of recording of significant events.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

14 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Linden Hall Surgery on 14 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of the completion of risk assessments of the building and an up to date fire risk assessment.
  • 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.
  • The majority of patients told us on the day of the inspection they could get appointments. However, two patients told us it was difficult to get at an appointment at Muxton so they attended the main practice instead.
  • 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 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.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements.

  • Introduce a system to record the action taken in response to Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) alerts.
  • Carry out risk assessments to monitor the safety of the premises and update the fire risk assessment.
  • Carry out a risk assessment to ensure that medicines are being stored in line with manufacturers’ guidance.
  • Ensure that staff are offered an annual appraisal.
  • Make patients aware that translation services are available.
  • Adopt a more proactive approach to identifying and meeting the needs of carers.
  • Include contact details for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in the complaints procedure.
  • Introduce a more structured programme for administration / reception staff meetings.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six patients during our inspection. All of them were generally pleased with the service they received from the surgery. One patient told us, 'The Doctors are very good here'. Another said, 'I am absolutely delighted with the place.' Most patients we spoke with told us that it was not always easy to get appointments when they wanted them.

We saw that the provider had procedures in place to help protect patients' privacy and dignity. The staff we spoke with were familiar with the procedures. None of the patients we spoke with had any concerns in this area at all.

We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that met patients' needs and protected their rights. Patients were able to be involved in decisions about their treatment.

Patients received their treatment in a clean, hygienic environment. The provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure patients were not placed at risk of cross infection.

We were not satisfied that the provider made all the appropriate checks on staff before their full employment started to ensure that they were of good character.

We saw that the provider carried out a range of audits on a regular basis to monitor the quality of its own performance and to learn from any mistakes made. The provider had an active and effective patient participation group.