The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Conner and Partners Also known as Riverside Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Riverside Medical Centre, 175 Ferry Road, Hullbridge, Hockley, Essex, SS5 6JH (01702) 230555

Provided and run by:
Conner and Partners

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

25 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Conner and Partners on 25 February 2020. 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.

27 April 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 Conner and Partners on 23 June 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good with requires improvement for the ‘Safe’ domain. The full comprehensive report for this inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Conner and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We then carried out a desk-based focused inspection on 27 April 2017 to confirm that the practice were now meeting the legal requirements in relation to the breaches of regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 23 June 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as good, with the ‘Safe’ domain now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were in place for all staff including those non-clinical staff who acted as chaperones.
  • The recruitment policy and procedures followed available guidance.
  • Staff records had been reviewed and evidenced appropriate staff’s hepatitis B immunity status.
  • Arrangements for monitoring staff training meant that staff undertook relevant, periodic training updates.
  • Complaints information was easily available to patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

23 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Conner and Partners on 23 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good. The practice was rated as requires improvement for the safe domain and good for the effective, caring, responsive and well led domains.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • The practice investigated safety concerns when things went wrong and learning from these incidents was recognised, shared or acted on to minimise recurrences.
  • The practice had policies and procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable children. Staff had undertaken training and understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to this.
  • Some staff who carried out chaperone duties did not have Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) checks and a risk assessment had not been carried out to support this decision.
  • Infection control procedures were being followed. Regular infection control audits were being carried out. However some staff had not undertaken infection control training. There was a legionella risk assessment in place. Staff told us that they had hepatitis B vaccinations / immunity. However not all staff files included evidence of this.
  • All equipment was routinely checked, serviced and calibrated in line with the manufacturer’s instructions.
  • There were risk assessments in place for areas including fire safety, infection control, health and safety, premises and equipment.
  • There was a detailed business continuity plan in place to deal with any untoward incidents which may disrupt the running of the practice.
  • The practice had a recruitment procedure. Checks including proof of identity and references were obtained and newly employed staff undertook a period of role specific induction. However Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) checks had not been undertaken for some relevant staff.
  • Medicines were stored securely and there were systems in place to check they were in date and available in sufficient quantities.

  • Clinical audits were carried out routinely to monitor and improve outcomes for patients.

  • There were procedures in place to ensure that patients had regular medicines reviews where they were prescribed medicines on a long term basis or where they were prescribed high risk medicines.

  • Patients consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation and guidance.

  • Patients were treated with dignity and respect and those spoken with were happy with the care and treatment they received.

  • The practice identified some patients who were carers and offered them appropriate support.

  • Same day urgent appointments or telephone consultations and home visits were available. Patients spoken with told us they were satisfied with the appointment system.
  • The practice did not offer early morning or late evening appointments. However weekend appointments were available.
  • Complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately and apologies given where relevant. Information about the complaints system was not readily available for patients to access.
  • The practice had suitable facilities and equipment to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The practice sought and used patient’s comments and views to review and improve the services provided where needed.

There were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider must:

  • Ensure that staff carrying out chaperone duties have received a disclosure and barring service check or that a risk assessment is in place to show why one is not required.

  • Ensure that recruitment procedures are effective and follow published guidance.

Additionally the provider should:

  • Review staff records so that they include evidence that staff have been vaccinated / have immunity against Hepatitis B.

  • Review the arrangements for staff training so that staff undertake relevant, periodic training updates.

  • Review the arrangements for making the complaints procedure and information available to patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice