Archived: Portesham Surgery

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a focused desktop inspection of Drs Baird, Fowler and Beale on 6 September 2016 to assess whether the practice had made the improvements in providing effective care and services.

We had previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Baird, Fowler and Beale on 9 February 2016 when we rated the practice as good overall. However, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing effective services. This was because not all role specific competency and training for staff was up to date and not all staff had received an appraisal.

We asked the provider to send a report of the improvements they would make to comply with the regulation they were not meeting at that time. The practice is now able to demonstrate that they are meeting the regulations. The practice is now rated as good for providing effective care and the overall rating remains as good.

This report should be read in conjunction with the full inspection report dated 31 March 2016.

Our key finding across the area we inspected was as follows:

• Staff training considered mandatory by the practice occurred at regular intervals.
• There was an effective system in place to ensure training was monitored and staff had the skills they needed to perform their roles safely and effectively.
• There was an effective system in place to monitor staff development through regular appraisals, meetings and discussion.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Baird, Fowler and Beale on 09 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good. Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
• Feedback from patients about their care was consistently and strongly positive. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• 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.
• 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, with the exception of those relating to emergency medicines and infection control.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
• There were gaps in the training staff needed to undertake their roles. For example, not all staff had received training in infection prevention control.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• 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.
• The practice had proactively sought feedback from patients and had an active patient participation group.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

The practice had an outstanding caring ethos and a detailed understanding of the needs of their practice population. For example, the practice made arrangements for staff to collect patients with transport difficulties, including people with memory problems, from their own homes so they could attend the practice on a regular basis. There is limited public transport in the area so in order to support the rural population, the practice ran flu vaccine clinics in outlying village venues in the practice area to make it easier for patients to attend.The practice had also provided a ‘mock’ clinic for patients with a learning disability to enable them to become familiar with GP services.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

• Ensure that staff undertake all training necessary for them to perform their roles such as for infection control, adult safeguarding, moving and handling, health and safety, equality and diversity and fire safety.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Consider current arrangements at the reception desk and make changes as appropriate to improve patient confidentiality.
• Review the process for non-clinical staff undertaking the testing of urine samples.
• Review the security and storage of equipment in publically accessible areas.
• Review the system for checking emergency medicines and ensuring that all medicines necessary as determined by the practice, are in place.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice