We carried out a review of the data available to us about Burnt Ash 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 Burnt Ash Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of the practice on 10 February 2016. Breaches of the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 were found. The practice was rated as Requires Improvement for Safety.
After the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to address the breaches of regulation.
We undertook a desk-based focussed inspection on 16 November 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also where other improvements have been made following the initial inspection. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Burnt Ash Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Overall the practice is rated as Good. Specifically, following the focussed inspection we found the practice to now be good for providing safe services.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Burnt Ash Surgery on 10 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
The areas where the provider must make improvements are:
Ensure that all staff receive training in safeguarding and that this is renewed in line with national guidance.
In addition the provider should:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
On this inspection we found the provider had taken action which included the introduction of a daily cleaning check. This was done by the senior receptionist who carried out visual checks of the floors, sinks, couches and work surfaces, and recorded this in a log book. Any actions needed were noted in the log book, or raised and reported directly to the cleaning staff.
We found the provider had taken steps to address criticism from patients regarding the lack of available appointments by recruiting two new GPs.
There were mixed opinions regarding the availability of appointments: some people told us it was satisfactory but the majority told us it was difficult to get an appointment with the GP of their choice and of a lack of consistency because they were numerous locum GPs employed and they could not regularly see the same doctor.
We saw that systems were in place to promote safe practice and continuity of care. People's adverse conditions and allergies were highlighted on electronic records and when accessed this helped ensure that clinical staff were aware of these areas when assessing people for treatment. People belonging to certain patient groups were also highlighted, for example people needing palliative care or those who were house bound. This helped ensure that staff were aware they may have an urgent need to access clinical support.
There were some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, however the practice did not always manage to take on board the views of people using the service or use their views to make the necessary improvements.
The practice was clean and hygienic, however there were no records maintained of infection control audits.