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 The Whitehouse Surgery 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 The Whitehouse Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 17 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Whitehouse Surgery on 17 January 2020. 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 17 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Whitehouse Surgery on 13 February 2015. The practice was rated as requires improvement for providing safe, responsive and well-led services. It also required improvement for providing services to people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, and working age people (including those recently retired and students). The full comprehensive report on the February 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Whitehouse Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was undertaken as an announced comprehensive inspection on 17 July 2017. Overall the practice is now rated as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The areas we identified at our last inspection as in need of improvement have now all been addressed
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. However the practice had identified a relatively low number of carers in their patient population.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients we spoke with said they were satisfied with the care and treatment received at the practice
  • 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 the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

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

The provider should:

  • Review procedures for identifying a greater proportion of patients with caring responsibilities so they can provide and signpost them to appropriate support

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 13 February 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The White House Surgery on 13 February 2015. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for providing safe, responsive and well-led services. It also required improvement for providing services to people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, and working age people (including those recently retired and students). It was good for providing a caring and effective service. We also found it was good for providing services to older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia),.

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

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to recruitment checks.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.

  • 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.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Urgent appointments were usually available on the day they were requested.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure complaints and incidents are consistently recorded, monitored and addressed so that improvements are made to the service provided. Any improvement strategies must be shared and understood by all members of staff.

In addition the provider should:

  • Ensure that all staff who act as chaperones have been trained to do so and have undergone a risk assessment to determine the need for a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.
  • Review the protocols for repeat prescribing to ensure that non-clinical staff cannot override automated systems without prior approval from a GP.
  • Carry out an annual infection control audit to identify and address any risks to patient safety.

  • Improve the support of newly recruited staff, including locum staff, through the use of up-to-date induction processes and formal supervision arrangements.
  • Develop a co-ordinated approach to monitoring flu vaccine uptake to identify strategies for improving performance.
  • Improve the availability of appointments outside of normal working hours.
  • Improve communication between staff and patients about development plans for the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice