The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Kingfisher Family Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Retford Primary Care Centre, North Road, Retford, Nottinghamshire, DN22 7XF (01777) 702381

Provided and run by:
Kingfisher Family Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kingfisher Family Practice 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 Kingfisher Family Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

14 February and 18 February 2020

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Kingfisher Family Practice on 14 and 18 February 2020 as part of our inspection programme. At this inspection we followed up on breaches of regulations identified at a previous inspection on 14 August 2019.

This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Are services safe?
  • Are services effective?
  • Are services caring?
  • Are services responsive?
  • Are services well-led?

At the last inspection in August 2019 we rated the practice as requires improvement over all and for providing safe and well led services because:

  • The practice did not have clear systems and processes to keep patients safe.
  • The practice did not have appropriate systems in place for the safe management of medicines.
  • Recruitment procedures had not been followed.
  • The practice did not have clear and effective processes for managing risks.

At this inspection, we found that the provider had satisfactorily addressed these areas.

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.

At the February 2020 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.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

We identified two areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had developed a support group who met monthly. This was led by the social prescriber and attended by the practice manager and pharmacist. The group were supported to explore and discuss ideas and information about ways of coping with the various aspects of living with a long-term condition such as pain and fatigue. Data showed the practice invited up to 35 patients each month, up to eight had attended each meeting and approximately half of the patients had had their pain score reduced. Following attendance, a small number from each group had referred themselves to staying well or working win programmes. As this had been so successful the practice was in the process of developing an additional support group to tackle issues of loneliness and isolation..
  • The practice had a dedicated administrator for patients with a learning disability who made contact with patients to ensure regular health checks were carried out. They also contacted the patient or their carer to offer a prompt the day before an appointment to make sure they are still able to attend. Home visits were available for these patients if they had difficulty coming to the surgery and a dedicated GP provided this service. The administrator had worked closely with a local care home to arrange suitable visits for those who could attend the practice, for example appointments at quiet times. This had resulted in 80% of these patients being able to attend the practice for their review. The practice told us they had 95 patients on the learning disability register and 81 had had their annual reviews, four others had appointments scheduled and the remaining patients had been invited. The administrator sent a copy of the care plan following the review appointment as a reminder of any actions required to taken by the patient or carer.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue with plans for fire drills.
  • Review systems to ensure privacy curtains are cleaned in line with best practice guidance.
  • Review and improve the number of annual medication reviews undertaken.
  • Review and improve childhood immunisation uptake rates to meet World Health Organisation (WHO) targets.
  • Review and improve records relating to investigations of complaints and actions taken in response.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

14 August 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Kingfisher Family Practice on 14 August 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Are services safe?
  • Are services effective?
  • Are services well-led?

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 Requires Improvement overall.

We rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing safe services because:

  • The practice did not have clear systems and processes to keep patients safe.
  • The practice did not have appropriate systems in place for the safe management of medicines.
  • Recruitment procedures had not been followed.

We rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • The practice did not have clear and effective processes for managing risks.

We rated the practice Good for providing effective services because:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.

Following the inspection, the practice provided a detailed action plan and evidence that some areas of risk had been immediately addressed.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure that care and treatment is provided in a safe way.
  • Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed. Ensure specified information is available regarding each person employed.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and improve processes for enabling GP cards for access to electronic patient records and safeguarding information.
  • Review and improve provision of training for staff who undertake chaperone duties.
  • Review the fire risk assessment.
  • Review and improve systems to monitor staff training.
  • Review and improve systems to ensure all PGDs have been signed appropriately.
  • Review and improve systems for recording hospital only prescription medicines in patients records.
  • Review and improve checks of the emergency equipment in line with the Resuscitation Council guidance.
  • Review and implement systems for stock checks of medicines held in doctors’ bags.
  • Review systems for safe storage and tracking of blank prescriptions through the practice in line with guidance.
  • Review and improve systems to ensure National Institute for Health and Social Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines are implemented.
  • Review and improve systems to monitor nurse’s registration is maintained.
  • Review and improve childhood immunisation uptake rates to meet World Health Organisation (WHO) targets.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

10/03/2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bridgegate Surgery on 10 March 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also rated as good for providing services for all population groups.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • 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.
  • 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 was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found the appointment system very accessible.
  • 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.

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

  • The practice did not consistently monitor systems and processes for infection control and they had not ensured staff had completed training in this area.
  • A planned clinical audit cycle was not used to monitor the effectiveness of the care and treatment provided to improve outcomes for patients.
  • Whilst the GPs and practice manager had a clear vison for the practice there was no business, financial or development plan available.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice