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 Chelston Hall 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 Chelston Hall Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 17 October 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Chelston Hall Surgery on 3 June 2015. At that inspection the overall rating for the practice was good. The five domains of safe, responsive, caring, effective and well led were rated as good. All inspection reports for Chelston Hall Surgery can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Chelston Hall Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 17 October 2017 to confirm that the practice had continued to meet legal requirements and to identify additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across the Well Led domain we inspected were as follows:

  • The practice maintained an open and transparent approach and systems were in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The practice had introduced innovations and pilot schemes with a view to improving the way care and treatment was delivered to patients, such as the introduction of a GP Unit at Torbay Hospital.
  • The practice had introduced e-consultation which enabled patients to contact GPs online via email and receive a response from a GP within 48 hours.
  • 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.


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 3 June 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Chelston Hall on 3 June 2015

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

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

  • There was a track record and a culture of promptly responding to incidents, near misses and complaints and using these events to learn and change systems so that patient care could be improved.

  • Staff were aware of their responsibilities in regard to consent, safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

  • The practice was clean and tidy and there were infection control procedures in place.

  • Medicines were generally managed well within the practice and there were effective systems in place to deal with emergencies.

  • The GPs and other clinical staff were knowledgeable about how the decisions they made improved clinical outcomes for patients and kept patient care plans under review.

  • Data outcomes for patients were either equal to or above the average locally.

  • Patients were complimentary about the staff and how their medical conditions were managed.

  • Practice staff were professional and respectful when providing care and treatment.

  • The practice planned its services to meet the diversity of its patients. Adjustments were made to meet the needs of the patients and there was an effective appointment system in place which enabled a good access to the service.

  • There were clear recruitment processes in place. There were robust induction processes in place for all staff.

  • The practice had a vision and mission statement which were understood by staff.

  • There was a leadership structure in place and staff felt supported by the practice manager and each other.

We identified one area of outstanding practice:

The practice employed a carer’s support worker who was available by telephone five days a week and in person one day a week at the practice. Their role was to identify carers within the patient population, to offer them help and support, taking into account the physical and emotional pressures of being a carer. Providing information about practical support the carer’s support worker could refer carers to the appropriate agencies for benefits advice, links to carers support groups and respite care.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice