Beechwood Surgery

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (This practice was previously inspected February 2015 and rated as good).

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Requires Improvement

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Beechwood Surgery on 28 November 2017. We carried out a comprehensive inspection as part of our inspection programme under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. 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 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 reported difficulty accessing the telephone and found it difficult to book an appointment.
• The practice sought and acted on feedback from patients and had listened and responded to surveys completed. However patients reported reduced satisfaction with access to appointments and the telephone system.
• The practice was clean and tidy and staff had reviewed infection prevention control and policies.
• Patient safety and medicine alerts were shared amongst the clinical team and were consistently actioned and recorded.
• The practice maintained a good relationship with its patient participation group (PPG) who were proactive and responsive to the local populations needs.
• We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient dignity and information confidentiality.
• Training had been completed by all clinical members of staff however we found members of the non clinical team had not carried out refresher training for safeguarding. We found non clinical staff were aware of local protocols and had adequate knowledge to safeguard vulnerable adults and children. Since the inspection the practice have provided the remaining non clinical staff with time to complete their training.
• The practice had effective systems in place for temporary staff to allow them to carry out their roles efficiently.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Ensure there is an effective process to identify carers to enable support and advice to be offered to those that require it.
• Ensure staff complete refresher training when required.
• Continue to improve on patient satisfaction levels relating to access to service.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice