Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Rowhedge and University of Essex Medical Practice on 24 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were:
- There was an effective arrangement for reporting and recording significant and safety events at the practice.
- Risks were managed and evaluated to ensure patients and staff members were safe.
- Care was provided in line with current best practice and evidence based guidance. Staff members had the skills, knowledge, and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
- Patients told us they were cared for with concern, dignity, and respect; they also told us they were included in decisions about their care and treatment.
- Information about practice services and how to complain was available, on notices and the practice website. Learning was seen in meeting minutes, and improvements had been made as a consequence of complaints and concerns.
- Patients said they able to access appointments with a GP and were provided continuity of care. There were urgent appointments available on the same day.
- The practice was well equipped to treat their patients and the premises were clean and safe.
- Staff members said they felt supported by management, and there was a clear leadership structure at the practice. Feedback was sought from staff members and patients, which we saw the practice had considered and acted on.
- The practice recognised the requirements of the duty of candour in the open and honest way they deal with concerns and complaints.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We spoke with six people about their views of the service provided. They were all positive. One person said 'I am looked after and cared for.' Another person told us, 'I feel I can talk to them about anything.'
We saw that appropriate guidance was in place for dispensing staff. The dispensary manager told us, 'I have enough information to do my job safely." We found two inaccuracies when we reviewed the controlled drug medication. There was a clear process in place for dispensing repeat medication and there was a range of audits undertaken which related to medicines.
We spoke with five members of staff, all of whom said they felt supported. One staff member said, 'I am very well supported, you can go to anyone with a problem." There was a large range of policies, procedures and guidance available for staff to undertake their roles safely and effectively.
We saw that there was a system for learning from complaints and significant events. We found that comments people made were listened to. One person told us, 'They do take people's views on board.' Another person said, 'They listen, they are a fantastic surgery.'