The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Fownhope Medical Centre

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

Lower Island Orchard, Common Hill Lane, Fownhope, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 4PZ (01432) 860235

Provided and run by:
Fownhope Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Fownhope 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 Fownhope Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

09/01/2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Fownhope Medical Centre on 9 January 2020 as part of our inspection programme. The practice was rated good at the last inspection in October 2014.

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

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as outstanding overall.

We rated the practice as outstanding for providing caring services because:

  • Feedback from patients was consistently positive and was higher than local and national averages.
  • There was a strong person-centred culture.
  • The practice responded to patient surveys, acted on comments and made improvements where possible. They improved the system to provide more continuity and availability of appointments.
  • The patient medicine delivery service provided additional care and support particularly for elderly and housebound patients. There were many occasions when the delivery person had shared concerns about patients with the GPs resulting in visits and on occasions treatment.
  • The practice had been awarded Herefordshire GP Surgery of the year in November 2019, which was nominated by patients.

We rated the practice as outstanding for providing responsive services because:

  • The practice had designed, developed and improved processes for ensuring it could deliver both urgent and routine GP appointments to meet its patients’ needs. The system identified patient demand for appointments after a long-term audit of appointment availability and patient demand. The results were used to ensure enough urgent appointments and regular appointments were provided each day which also provided continuity of care. The impact was a significant reduction in the volume and unpredictability of unscheduled work. This led to less pressure and stress for patients and staff.
  • The patient medicine delivery service provided additional care and support particularly for elderly and housebound patients.
  • Patient survey results were consistently higher than local and national averages in relation to timely access to the service.
  • Timely access and improvements to appointment availability benefitted all population groups and so we rated all population groups as outstanding.

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

  • The culture of the practice and the way it was led and managed drove the delivery and improvement of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • There was a strong focus on efficiency, safety and quality service provision for all their patients.
  • The practice were very receptive to any changes or improvements staff had suggested. This was demonstrated through the results of a recent staff survey.
  • Many initiatives to make improvements within the practice were taken up including review of the protocols for the management of suspected sepsis and prevalence checks to ensure they were identifying all patients at risk of developing diseases.
  • A programme of improvement had been initiated by the practice in conjunction with the GP federation and CCG to standardise clinical coding and safeguarding processes.

We also rated the practice as good for providing safe and effective services because:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice had designed, developed and improved processes for ensuring it could deliver both urgent and routine GP appointments to meet its patients’ needs. The system identified patient demand for appointments after a long-term audit of appointment availability and patient demand. The results were used to ensure enough urgent appointments and regular appointments were provided each day which also provided continuity of care. The impact was a significant reduction in the volume and unpredictability of unscheduled work, resulting in a 15% increase in the total number of routine appointments available each month. This led to less pressure and stress for patients and staff.
  • The patient medicine delivery service provided additional care and support particularly for elderly and housebound patients. There were many occasions when the delivery person had shared concerns about patients with the GPs resulting in visits and on occasions treatment.

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

7 October 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Drs Wood and Hearne on 7 October 2014.  The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector and included a GP specialist advisor, a practice manager and an Expert by Experience.  We found Drs Wood and Hearne provided a good service to patients in all of the five key areas we looked at.  This applied to patients across all age ranges and to patients with varied needs due to their health or social circumstances.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had comprehensive systems for monitoring and maintaining the safety of the practice and the care and treatment they provide to their patients.
  • The practice was proactive in helping people with long term conditions to manage their health and had arrangements in place to make sure their health was monitored regularly.
  • The practice was clean and hygienic and had robust arrangements for reducing the risks from healthcare associated infections.
  • Patients felt that they were treated with dignity and respect.  They felt that their GP listened to them and treated them as individuals.
  • The practice had a well-established and well trained team and who had expertise and experience in a wide range of health conditions.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

3 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six patients during our inspection. Most were very complimentary about the service they received at the surgery. They told us, 'This is the best surgery I've been to' and, 'It's always been very good'. One patient told us they felt the doctors were slow to diagnose their problem but that they, 'Can't do enough for me now'.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided. We also saw that the surgery had policies and procedures in place to help protect patients' privacy and dignity. The staff we spoke with were familiar with the procedures. None of the patients we spoke with had any concerns in this area.

We found that stocks of medicines in the surgery's dispensary were correctly stored, and recorded. We also found that medicines were safely dispensed.

We were satisfied that the provider made all the appropriate checks on staff before their full employment started. The practice manager regularly checked to ensure that healthcare professionals employed at the surgery were correctly registered with their appropriate professional body.

There were processes in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was also an established system for obtaining opinions from patients about the standard of the service they received.