You are here

Dr S Nelson & Partners Good Also known as Overton Park Surgery

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 October 2020

We previously carried out an announced focused inspection in July 2019 of Dr S Nelson & Partners following our annual review of the information available to us. This included information provided by the practice. At this inspection we focused on the effective and well led domains. We rated the practice as Good overall and Good for providing effective services but Requires Improvement for providing well led services as we found a breach of regulations. You can read the full report by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr S Nelson & Partners on our website.

We were mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what type of inspection was necessary and proportionate. This was therefore a desk-based review. On 26 August 2020 we commenced the desk-based review to confirm the practice had carried out its plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach of regulations that we identified in the July 2019 inspection. We also looked at progress made against the areas identified in our previous inspection where the practice should make improvements (but were not breaches of regulation).

We have found that the practice is now meeting those requirements and we have amended the rating for the practice accordingly. The practice is now rated as good for providing well led services.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • What we found when we reviewed the information sent to us by the provider
  • Information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • Information from the provider.

We have rated the practice as Good for providing well-led services because:

  • The practice had improved their systems to monitor risks relating to Legionella.
  • Improvements had been made to the monitoring of non-medical prescribers.

The practice had also made developments in areas where we previously identified they should make improvements:

  • The practice had introduced systems to improve the recording of actions taken in response to risk assessments.
  • Assurance processes had been introduced to monitor how consent was recorded.
  • Additional measures had been introduced to try and improve cervical screening uptake.
  • The practice had improved processes to review children not brought to secondary care appointments

While there are no breaches in regulation, we did identify areas where the provider should make improvements;

  • Improve uptake for patients diagnosed with COPD who receive an annual assessment.
  • Continue to improve uptake of cervical screening.
  • Continue to review exception codes on patient records to ensure accuracy.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Effective

Good

Caring

Good

Responsive

Good

Well-led

Good
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Families, children and young people

Good

Older people

Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good