The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Colliery Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

60 Hednesford Street, Cannock, Staffordshire, WS11 1DJ (01543) 435390

Provided and run by:
The Colliery Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Colliery Practice 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 The Colliery Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

27 September 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Colliery Practice on 27 September 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.

17 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Colliery Medical Practice on 17 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients told us on the day of the inspection that they were able to get ‘on the day’ appointments when they needed them. They told us they could usually get a routine appointment within a week but it may take longer for an appointment with their GP of choice.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • One of the GPs with a special interest in neurology ran a headache clinic, which was also open to patients registered at other local practices.
  • 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 and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Ask applicants about any physical or mental health conditions they may have as part of the recruitment process.
  • Improve the effectiveness in the use of the practice’s long term condition templates and ensure staff are suitably trained in their use.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 December 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with eight patients and seven members of staff. Before our inspection we spoke with a spokesperson from the patient participation group (PPG). PPGs are an effective way for patients and GP practices to work together to improve the service and to promote and improve the quality of the care. One patient told us, 'The staff are absolutely excellent. They are polite and courteous'. Another patient told us, 'I don't think you would get a better service anywhere else'. The provider delivered maternity and midwifery services but had not registered with us to do so. We informed them to take immediate action.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that patients were treated with dignity and respect. Patients told us they experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs.

Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to ensure that patients were protected from harm.

We saw that patients were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We saw the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that patients received. They worked with the PPG to effectively gather and act on the views of patients who used the service.