You are here


Review carried out on 4 November 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Perranporth Surgery on 4 November 2021. 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 Perranporth Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 11 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Perranporth Surgery on 11 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.

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 18 March 2015– rated as Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Perranporth Surgery on 12 June 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice was instrumental in assisting with the development of a charitable organisation that helped new mothers suffering with peri natal depression. The aim of this charity was to increase awareness of postnatal depression, provide help and support for sufferers and give people the information and direction to gain the help necessary, when it is most needed. There is now a local service, run by a psychiatrist with a special interest in the field and two expert mental health nurses. The organisation also sponsors educational events on this subject within Cornwall.
  • The Patient Participation Group (PPG) were active in promoting health and wellbeing initiatives in Perranporth and surrounding villages. They had organised a community event to demonstrate and signpost patients to organised activities.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 18 March 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced inspection at Perranporth Surgery on 18 March 2015. The practice is rated as good. Specifically, it was good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led services. It was good for providing services for all the population groups, older people, children and young people, people with long term conditions people in vulnerable circumstances and people who are working age or recently retired.

Our key findings were as follows:


Outcomes for patients were positive, consistent and met expectations. Patients told us it was easy to get an appointment with their own GP or a GP of their choice, which provided continuity of care.


Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.


Reliable systems were in place to maintain safety throughout the practice.


There was good IT support to enable staff to manage patient records well.


Treatment rooms and public areas were clean and there were systems in place to ensure hygienic conditions and equipment.


The practice implemented suggestions for improvements to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the Patient Participation Group (PPG).      


The practice was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice