You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cobham Health Centre on 9 September 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 Cobham Health Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 7 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Cobham Health Centre on 7 December 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 6 June 2018

During a routine inspection

Cobham Health Centre was previously inspected in November 2015 and was rated good overall and in all domains.

At this inspection in June 2018 the practice is rated as Good overall.

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 Cobham Health Centre on 6 June 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

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 used their knowledge of the local community and patient population to deliver high quality and person centred care.
  • 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.
  • There was a strong focus on improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Staff were supported in personal development and training and received regular appraisals.
  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed the results for practice management of patients with long-term conditions were good.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Patients said they were able to book an appointment that suited their needs. Pre-bookable, on the day appointments and home visits were available. Urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs were also provided the same day.
  • The practice was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider ways to increase identification of patients who are registered with the practice and a carer.
  • Continue to review ways to increase uptake for cervical screening.

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

Inspection carried out on 11 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cobham Health Centre on 11 November 2015. 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.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently and strongly positive.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand. Patients who had made complaints were responded to appropriately.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they could make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice was able to offer evening appointments (until 9:30pm) and weekend appointments to all their patients. The practice was part of a hub of doctors’ practices that jointly ran these services.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice