You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Avon Valley Practice on 8 July 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 Avon Valley Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 10 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Avon Valley Practice on 10 August 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 The evidence provided by the practice enabled the Care Quality Commission to conduct this review without the need for a visit. The review of the evidence was carried out on 12 April 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We visited Avon Valley Practice on 23 August 2016 to carry out a comprehensive inspection. We found the practice was not compliant with the regulation relating to safe care and treatment. Overall the practice was rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice required improvement for the provision of safe services because:

  • There was no atropine available at either of the practice’s sites on the day of the inspection. (Atropine is a drug that can slow the heart rate and is recommended to be available for emergencies in practices that fit coils or perform minor surgery.)

  • The practice did not have an up to date record of the Hepatitis B status for all staff who may have direct contact with patients’ blood or blood-stained bodily fluids. For example, from sharps.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan that set out the changes they would make and subsequently supplied information to confirm they had completed the actions.

This focused desk based inspection was undertaken on 2 February 2017 to ensure that the practice was meeting the regulation previously breached. For this reason we have only rated the location for the key questions to which this related. This report should be read in conjunction with the full report of our inspection on 23 August 2016, which can be found on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The practice is now rated as Good for

the provision of safe services

and the overall rating remains as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Atropine was now available at both the practice’s sites.

  • The practice has an up to date record of the Hepatitis B status for all staff who may have direct contact with patients’ blood or blood-stained bodily fluids.

 

During our desktop review, we found that since our visit in August 2016 the practice had reviewed other areas of their practice to improve their services.  For example, we saw evidence the practice had:

  • Reviewed and updated their repeat prescription protocols.

  • Reviewed and updated their employment policy to ensure that staff who required a DBS check due to their role, have it repeated at three yearly intervals.

  • Reviewed and updated their telephone system. 

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 23 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Avon Valley Practice on 23 August 2016. 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.

  • Most

    risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • 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.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure that all appropriate emergency medicines are held at the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure that the drug monitoring protocol is constantly reviewed to ensure that all repeat prescriptions continue to be monitored safely.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice