Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focused inspection at the Abbey Surgery on 8 June 2016. This was to review the actions taken by the provider as a result of our issuing one legal requirement.  In December 2015, the practice did not operate effective audit and governance systems to evaluate and improve outcomes for patients. There were gaps in the assessment and monitoring of patients, when the practice excluded some patients from reviews, which could increase risks relating to the health safety and welfare of service users. After the inspection, the practice sent us a plan showing how these issues would be addressed and we have monitored this with the practice.

At this inspection, we reviewed the actions taken since the last inspection.   Overall the practice has been rated as GOOD following our findings, with effective now rated as GOOD.

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

• The provider had introduced systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of all services provided and identify, assess and manage all risks related to health, welfare and safety.

• The level of clinical audit had increased at the practice with an audit programme in place for the whole year.

• The practice had reviewed the exception reporting procedures for those patients diagnosed with dementia and diabetic patients who were under hospital care. A sample of 15 patient records provided assurance that reviews were appropriately planned and met patient needs.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focused inspection at the Abbey Surgery on 8 June 2016. This was to review the actions taken by the provider as a result of our issuing one legal requirement.  In December 2015, the practice did not operate effective audit and governance systems to evaluate and improve outcomes for patients. There were gaps in the assessment and monitoring of patients, when the practice excluded some patients from reviews, which could increase risks relating to the health safety and welfare of service users. After the inspection, the practice sent us a plan showing how these issues would be addressed and we have monitored this with the practice.

At this inspection, we reviewed the actions taken since the last inspection.   Overall the practice has been rated as GOOD following our findings, with effective now rated as GOOD.

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

• The provider had introduced systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of all services provided and identify, assess and manage all risks related to health, welfare and safety.

• The level of clinical audit had increased at the practice with an audit programme in place for the whole year.

• The practice had reviewed the exception reporting procedures for those patients diagnosed with dementia and diabetic patients who were under hospital care. A sample of 15 patient records provided assurance that reviews were appropriately planned and met patient needs.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We spoke with or received written feedback from nine people who were patients at either Abbey Surgery or Bere Alston Surgery. They were all positive about their care and treatment. Their comments included "I received good advice and treatment", "Good caring staff, never had any problems", and "I realise that one has to wait past the appointment time, but my opinion is that if the Dr doesn't rush those in front of me I know they won't rush me".

People told us they felt they were treated with respect and dignity.

Staff knew where to find the local safeguarding procedures and they were confident about how to take appropriate action if there were any suspicions of abuse.

We found the premises at both Abbey and Bere Alston surgeries were satisfactory to ensure people's safety.

There were appropriate arrangements in place which ensured that staff kept their knowledge and skills up to date. Staff spoke about the supportive environment and confirmed that they had access to adequate training.

The practice was organised and well led. There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and patients felt able to give feedback about the service they received.

Complaints were dealt with appropriately although not always in a timely manner.