Archived: Maple Surgery

This practice is rated as Good overall. At the previous inspection in April 2015 the practice were rated as good overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Requires Improvement

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Maple Surgery on 30 November 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

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 found that:

• The practice had clear systems, practices and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• The practice did not always have oversight of the progress of actions arising from risk assessments and infection control audits.
• The practice was able to access the support of a pharmacist employed by the provider to work across all of their practices.
• The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.
• Childhood immunisation uptake rates were above the World Health Organisation (WHO) targets at 95%.
• Patients we spoke to were positive about the caring attitude displayed by all staff at the practice.
• The practice had only identified and supported 21 carers, this was approximately 0.58% of the practice population.
• There was no active patient participation group and the practice could not evidence any engagement with patients.
• Staff that we spoke with were positive about their experiences working at the practice.

We have rated the practice as good overall for providing effective services. However, we have rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services for people with long term conditions because:

• The practice performance for diabetes was lower than CCG and national averages.
• The practice performance for atrial fibrillation was lower than CCG and national averages.

We have rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services because:

• Feedback from patients in relation to accessing services provided by the practice was consistently negative and lower than local and national averages.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

• Review and implement the actions from the most recent fire risk assessment.
• Review and implement the actions from the most recent infection control audit.
• Review and improve the practice’s performance in relation to long term conditions such as diabetes and atrial fibrillation.
• Review and improve the number of carers that the practice identifies and supports.
• Review feedback gathered from patients and take actions to improve the patient experience, such as accessing the practice.
• Develop and encourage patient participation at the practice.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice