You are here

Aspull Surgery Good Also known as Drs Van Spelde and Greiss

Reports


Review carried out on 24 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Aspull Surgery on 24 October 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 2 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 5 November 2014 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

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 inspection at Aspull Surgery on 2 November 2017. We carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. 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 found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

  • 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 5th November 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected Aspull Surgery on the 5th November 2014 as part of our new comprehensive inspection programme.

We reviewed information provided to us leading up to the inspection and spent seven hours on-site speaking to seven members of staff, six patients and reviewed 18 comment cards which patients had completed leading up to the inspection. From all the evidence gathered during the inspection process we have rated the practice as good.

During our inspection the comments from patients were positive about the care and treatment they received.

Feedback included individual praise of staff for their care and kindness and going the extra mile.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in care and treatment decisions.
  • The appointment system was reviewed by the patients participation group (PPG)  and changes made to better meet the needs of patients. Majority of patients reported good access to the practice and a named GP and continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • Staff understand their responsibilities to raise concerns, and report incidents.
  • The practice is clean and well maintained.
  • There are a range of qualified staff to meet patients’ needs and keep them safe.
  • Data showed us patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality. People’s needs are assessed and care is planned and delivered in line with current legislation.
  • The practice works with other health and social care providers to achieve the best outcomes for patients.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

The patient participation group (PPG) working with a specialist activities instructor have established weekly health walks, with two patients being trained as walk leaders.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements. 

Importantly the provider should:

We saw the practice had in place a detailed child protection and vulnerable adult’s policy and procedure. Within the policy it stated ‘All members of staff require child protection and safeguarding adult training as part of induction and renewed annually.’

Speaking with staff who acted as chaperones, they were clear of the role and responsibility but not all non-clinical staff had received training.

We noted whole prescription pads were issued to each GP for home visits, once these had been issued, no checks were in place to monitor the number or prescriptions used.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice