We carried out a review of the data available to us about Collingham Medical Centre 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 Collingham Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced focused inspection of Collingham Medical Centre on 25 October 2021. We carried out the inspection to follow up our inspection in April 2021 when a requirement notice was set for the following regulation:
During this inspection we only reviewed the responsive key question, but did not rate it as we only looked at a small aspect of the domain. Overall, the practice remains rated as good.
Safe - not inspected
Effective – not inspected
Caring – not inspected
Responsive – inspected but not rated
Well-led – not inspected
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
We have not rated this practice.
The practice had been rated ‘Good’ at our last inspection in February 2018. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Collingham Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
We found that the provider had complied with our requirement notice and:
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
We carried out an announced focused inspection of Collingham Medical Centre on 15 April 2021 after receiving concerns about the practice.
This inspection focused on complaints management under the following key question:
Responsive
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
We have not rated this practice.
The practice had been rated ‘Good’ at our last inspection in February 2018. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the 'all reports' link for Collingham Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
We found that:
The area where the provider must make improvements is:
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
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Collingham Medical Centre (previously known as Dr Lisa Terrill & Partners) on 15 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, with a rating of requires improvement for the responsive section of the report. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Collingham Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 5 February 2018 to confirm that the practice had addressed the areas for improvement that we identified in our previous inspection on 15 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those improvements made since our last inspection.
Our key findings were as follows:
At our previous inspection on 15 November 2016, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services because patients sometimes experienced difficulties in accessing appointments. At this inspection we found that the arrangements in respect of access to appointments had significantly improved. Consequently, the practice is now rated as good for providing responsive services.
National GP patient survey data showed patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment had increased since our previous inspection and was comparable to local and national averages. This was supported by patients spoken with during this inspection.
The practice had introduced new staff roles to enable them to make better use of clinical resources and direct patients to the most appropriate response.
A programme of regular auditing was used to oversee appointment availability and to identify areas for improvement.
At our previous inspection we identified two other areas where we had asked the provider to make improvements:
Review the processes in place for recalling patients for blood monitoring when high risk medicines are being prescribed.
Work with patients to develop a new patient participation group (PPG).
At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in both these areas.
The recall arrangements for patients prescribed high risk medicines had been strengthened. There was a clear protocol in place, which included a register of patients requiring this type of monitoring, and we found this was being implemented reliably. If patients failed to attend for their blood tests the practice made repeated attempts to contact and encourage them to do so. Clinicians were kept informed about patients whose tests were overdue so they could consider risk and discuss with the patient if they attended the practice for other reasons. The practice had carried out an audit to help drive improvement in this area. A second audit had also been completed in January 2018 and showed that improvements had been achieved.
The practice had established a new PPG in October 2017. There was a formal structure for this group, including terms of reference and regular, minuted meetings. During this inspection we reviewed documents relating to the PPG and met members of the group. The PPG had identified communication between patients and the practice as a key area for improvement and were supporting the production and sharing of written information for display and distribution. This included a newsletter, updating the practice website, reception area notice boards and circulating information throughout the local area, to help make it more easily accessible to patients. During January 2018, the PPG had promoted the completion of Friends and Family feedback cards, resulting in 88 completed responses, which was a significant increase in comparison to previous months. These responses were to be reviewed at the next PPG meeting and an action plan prepared to take forward the findings from this.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Lisa Terill & Partners on 28 July 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good with a rating of requires improvement in responsive. The full comprehensive report published on the 8 October 2015 can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Lisa Terill & Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was undertaken to follow up the areas requiring improvement and was an announced comprehensive inspection on 15 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
The areas where the provider should make improvement are:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Terrill & Partners (Collingham Medical Practice) on 28 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students) and people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.
It required improvement for providing responsive services and care for people experiencing poor mental health.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
We saw one area of outstanding practice:
The practice coordinated the provision of a volunteer led transport service with the patient participation group (PPG). The service is for patients registered with the practice who struggle to access public transport within the village. A team of volunteer drivers used their own cars to support patients to attend a range of health related appointments and social activities. At the time of our inspection there were 18 drivers, 250 registered patients and 256 trips had been undertaken to hospitals and the GP practice.
This feature was outstanding in that service provision went beyond the normal scope of clinical practice and the practice used additional resources available to them to ensure patients within the rural community were supported to access health services and community activities.
However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
Importantly the provider must:
In addition the provider should:
Chief Inspector of General Practice