You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 25 September 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Linden Hall Surgery on 25 September 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 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

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The action taken by the provider to introduce new recruitment policies had created a robust process to ensure that new staff were of good character, were suitably qualified, and were entitled to work in the UK.

Inspection carried out on 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.