• Doctor
  • GP practice

Claypath and University Medical Group

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

26 Gilesgate, Durham, County Durham, DH1 1QW (0191) 374 6888

Provided and run by:
Claypath and University Medical Group

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Claypath and University Medical Group 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 Claypath and University Medical Group, you can give feedback on this service.

31 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Claypath and University Medical Group on 31 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.

6 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Claypath & University Medical Group on Tuesday 6 September 2106. 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.
  • 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 duty of candour is a set of specific legal requirements that providers of services must follow when things go wrong with care and treatment).

There were areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had pioneered the frail/elderly nurse practitioner. Evidence from the two year Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) funded pilot had influenced the practice to continue to fund these posts as both patient care had improved and it had freed up GP time to deal with urgent cases. This was not only proactive care but also appropriate reactive care to the frail/elderly and housebound patient groups.
  • The practice was particularly effective in managing patients with long term conditions such as: provision of Insulin initiation on site, for patients with Type 2 diabetes. Their patients did not have to attend secondary care (hospitals) for this treatment and this avoided outpatient appointments at the hospital; and their care was delivered closer to home.
  • Patients who had a dual diagnosis of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were treated using the GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) guidance. This up to date evidence based treatment assured that patients received the most appropriate care for these complex conditions.
  • The practice had organised services to meet the needs of its student population of over 14,000 patients (this equated to over half of the practice’s registered patients). This included liaising with the University to share information, having a dedicated student website and having an annual patient satisfaction survey for this group of patients.

Professor Steve Field

CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice