You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 2 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Great Bentley Surgery on 2 July 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 23 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Great Bentley Surgery on 23 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff knew how to raise concerns, and report safety incidents. Safety information was recorded, monitored, and reviewed to identify trends or recurrent themes. When safety events occurred they were investigated and any issues identified were shared with all staff members.
  • Risks to patients were monitored, assessed, and well managed. The system for assessing risks included those associated with; premises, equipment, medicines, and infection control.
  • Patient care was planned and provided to reflect best practice and recommended current clinical guidance.
  • Staff had received appropriate training for their roles and further training had been encouraged, recognised and planned.
  • Information regarding how to complain was available at the practice and on the practice website.
  • The practice staff members had received training regarding the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults, and knew who to contact with any concerns.
  • The practice was suitably equipped to treat patients and meet their requirements. The equipment had been checked and maintained to ensure it was safe to use.
  • Patient comments were positive in the main when we spoke with them during the inspection. They also told us it was relatively easy to make an appointment and there was continuity of care. Members of the virtual practice patient participation group were proactive and keen to be involved with practice development.
  • The leadership structure at the practice was well-established and all the staff members we spoke with said they felt supported in their working roles by both the practice manager and the GPs.

  • There were good facilities and equipment to treat patients.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice donated funds to support the Little Clacton community car scheme that provided door to door transport for patients to healthcare appointments living in the Little Clacton and Weeley areas. This directly benefitted patients at the practice living in rural areas that were not connected by public transport or owned their own transport to attend for their appointments/treatment at the practice.

The area where the provider should make improvement are:

Explore new sources and continue to identify patients who are carers to provide them with support.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 12 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who said they were asked for their consent by the nurses and the doctors. We tracked the records of six patients. We saw evidence that both written and verbal consent had been obtained as appropriate and this was documented.

We spoke with seven people about their care and treatment in the surgery. They all gave positive comments. One person said, �I have a lot of problems and my doctor has done everything in their power to help me and get me better.�

The surgery had a lead doctor for safeguarding. Clinical staff had received training in safeguarding children. There was no evidence of safeguarding adult training. The staff we spoke with identified most of the different types of abuse and were able to identify where they would find the appropriate referral form.

We spoke with one member of staff who said, �I feel supported here.� We looked at the staff file for the most recent employee. We were told that this member of staff had received some induction. There was no written evidence of an induction in the staff file. We were shown the appraisals of five members of nursing staff. They had all been completed within the previous year.

In relation to complaints, one person said, �I did have to make a complaint a while back. This did not present any difficulties and was resolved amicably.� We saw evidence of a range of positive comments made in relation to the surgery. We saw evidence that audits were used at the surgery to improve practice.