The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Cubbington Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

115 Cubbington Road, Lillington, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 7AT (01926) 453080

Provided and run by:
Cubbington Road Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cubbington Road 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 Cubbington Road Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

20 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Cubbington Road Surgery on 20 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.

26 March 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cubbington Road Surgery on 26 March 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we followed up on areas identified for improvement at the previous inspection on 10 November 2015, when all domains were rated good.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The practice ensured that care and treatment were delivered according to evidence-based guidelines and best practice.
  • There was an open, transparent approach to safety and a system for recording, tracking, and actioning significant events. We saw that there was a well-developed system for learning from events, which included amending processes to prevent a recurrence.
  • The practice had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to occur.
  • The systems, processes and practices to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse were well embedded, as were the systems for identifying and mitigating risks to health and safety.
  • The practice scored maximum points in the Quality and Outcomes Framework 2017/18 and was on course to achieve high results for 2018/19.
  • The practice provided insulin initiation in-house.
  • Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that the practice achieved higher marks regarding patient access than local and national averages.
  • Patients told us that it was very easy to book routine and urgent appointments with a GP of their choice. Routine appointments were often available on the same day.
  • Patients we spoke with said that they received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice worked with other organisations to ensure that patients had access to a range of services to support their health and general wellbeing.
  • Services were tailored to suit the needs of individual patients and they were delivered in a flexible way.
  • Patient feedback gained via comments cards, reviews on NHS Choices and interviews with patients and care home staff was consistently and strongly positive about the caring attitude of all staff.
  • Patients we spoke with were very appreciative of the continuity of care.
  • The practice had identified 205 carers, which represented 3% of the practice population.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care and contributed to the strong teamwork and high staff morale.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support effective governance.
  • There was evidence of collaborative working with local practices. There was demonstrated commitment to continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements in response to feedback form patients and the patient participation group.
  • The practice had Research Ready accreditation with the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and was part of the Clinical Research Network at Warwick University. Research studies were being carried out which contributed to expanding knowledge and improving outcomes for patients.

There was one outstanding feature:

  • The practice had a consistent record of staff going the extra mile for patients. For example a GP was given an award for consistently going above and beyond in patient care by the South Warwickshire Federation in 2017 and a member of the nursing team was recommended for a federation award as a result of her contribution to a vulnerable patient’s health and well-being (results not known at the time of the inspection).

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

10 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cubbington Road Surgery on 10 November 2015. 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.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
  • 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 (PPG).
  • The practice was well equipped and had good facilities to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice had a clear vision about providing a quality and caring service in a safe way.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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.

However, there are areas where improvements are needed. The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • To develop processes that maximise learning opportunities from significant events. This should include regular reviews of events to identify any themes or trends, and external reporting where appropriate for wider shared learning.
  • Update the business continuity plan to include emergency contact numbers for staff.


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

22, 28 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the provider, one practice nurse, reception staff and one healthcare professional who worked in liaison with the practice. We spoke with six patients from the practice. Two patients described the staff as 'Well skilled.' One patient told us , 'The treatment I've received; I couldn't ask for better.' Some other comments made by patients included, ' I think the service they provide is flexible and brilliant. They are superb!'

We found that good communication and referral pathways existed between the practice and other healthcare professionals. Patients confirmed that their GP had supported them throughout the referral process. We saw that patients had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment and forums existed to encourage patients to air their views.

We saw systems and guidance in place to protect vulnerable adults and children and staff knew who to approach should a safeguarding event take place.

We saw that systems were in place to assess and monitor complaints at the practice. We observed that the complaints process had been effective against those complaints we had reviewed. Staff told us how they had learned from patients complaints and how practises had changed following the complaint.