The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Mr William Williams Also known as Arrival Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Endurance House, Clarence Street, Stockton On Tees, Cleveland, TS18 2EP (01642) 615415

Provided and run by:
Mr William Williams

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

27 September 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Mr William Williams 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.

05/04/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Arrival Practice on 5 April 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. There had been no complaints in the past year.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. The practice routinely used interpreters as the majority of patients attending this practice were seeking asylum or refugees.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection in September 2013 we found that people were not always protected against the risk of infection because the cleanliness of the environment and infection control was not fully monitored. We wrote to the provider and asked them to make improvements. The provider wrote to us and told us that they had taken action to address the concerns.

At this inspection we reviewed the actions the provider had implemented. We spoke with the registered manager and discussed the implementation of the action plan they had developed to address the concerns.

We looked around the practice and saw that the concerns we raised about cleanliness and infection control monitoring had been addressed. The registered manager had put in place an audit tool to monitor the cleanliness and infection control within the practice. We saw that policies had been reviewed and staff had received appropriate training.

We saw that the previous concerns we raised had been addressed.

25 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with three patients who used Arrival Practice. The patients we spoke with either did not speak English or English was not their first language; we therefore sought their permission to use an interpreter for some of the interviews. People told us they were very happy with the services they received. One patient said, 'I am absolutely happy with this practice, they listen to me and treat me with respect.'

We observed the experiences of patients. We saw that staff interacted and communicated well with patients and the interpreters who accompanying them.

We saw that people were not always protected against the risk of infection because the cleanliness of the environment and infection control was not well monitored.

We found that the staff received appropriate training and had regular supervision and appraisals. The staff we spoke with told us they worked in a very supportive environment.

We found that systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.