Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Blakeney Surgery on 20 September 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 said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• 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

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Blakeney Surgery on 26 January 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically we found it good for effective, caring, responsive and well led services. It was also good for providing services for older people, people with long-term conditions, mothers, babies, children and young people, working-age population and those recently retired people in vulnerable circumstances who may have poor access to primary care and people experiencing poor mental health. It required improvement for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and knew how to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety measures were recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. Staff were trained and knew how to recognise signs of abuse in older people, vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to share information and properly record documentation of safeguarding concerns.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
• The practice provided a focussed service for patients with learning difficulties.
• Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and that they felt involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about the services provided and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Complaints were managed well.
• The practice had good facilities and was 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 upon.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice provided for some patients’ sigmoidoscopy (bowel examination with the use of a camera) clinics, reducing the need for patients to travel long distances to hospital.

The provider must:

• The medicines kept at the practice should be managed and kept securely. Medicines in the treatment room, the store room, the dispensary and the cupboard where filled monitored dosage boxes were stored awaiting collection must be reviewed and improved.

In addition the provider should:

• Improve recording details about significant events.
• The provider should put a planned recorded programme of carrying out risk assessments for the building in place.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We looked at documents held by the provider, spoke to staff and looked at the results of a satisfaction survey from 2013. We asked the reception staff if they could ask patients if they would like to talk to us. Only one patient chose to do this.

The staff we spoke to all confirmed that patients were involved in the decisions effecting their care. Staff were aware of the lack of privacy at reception. We saw signs on display that told patients private rooms were available should they want to discuss any private matters. We looked at the training records for staff. This showed us that all staff had been trained in basic life support. The records also showed us that all staff had received training for the safeguarding of children. We noted that a plan was in place to also make sure staff were trained in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. The staff we spoke to all had a good understanding of safeguarding. They understood their own responsibilities to recognise and report concerns. The practice had good quality monitoring systems in place. These included regular clinical audits and listening to what patients had said in complaints, the patient satisfaction survey or other feedback from the local community.

We spoke to one patient who told us “this practice does far more than it should be doing, it is a real part of our community. They just don’t worry about the patient when they walk through the surgery door.” “They look after the whole community all of the time”.