Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cuckfield Medical Practice on 13 July 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.
• Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice higher than others for nearly all aspects of care.
• 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 was piloting offering web based consultations for patients. These were accessed through the practice website and the patient completed a quick, secure questionnaire which was sent to their GP. The GP reviewed the answers given and recommended advice or treatment.
• 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 practice had an active patient participation group which was organising a wellbeing fair to increase awareness of long term conditions and local support services.
• The partners took a proactive approach to trying out new ideas and offered a wide range of services to meet differing patient needs.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Professor Steve Field

CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Our inspection took place at the Cuckfield Medical Practice, we did not visit the branch surgery as part of this inspection. We spoke with eight patients at the surgery. We spoke with the practice manager, two receptionists, an administrator and two General Practitioners (GP’s) and a nurse. We observed the medical centre in operation and looked at policies and records to help us understand how the practice was run.

We found that patients were involved in their care and the running of the surgery. A patient said “I feel really listened to and involved in all my treatment”. The practice ran a patient participation group (PPG). A patient and member of the PPG told us “They are really taking the PPG seriously. Its early days, but we are in collaboration”.

We saw that patients’ records supported safe and effective clinical care. There were systems for managing patients’ medicines safely and for ensuring investigation results were followed up. Patients expressed confidence in their care with one commenting “I think this is a brilliant practice”.

We found that patients were seen and treated in a clean and hygienic environment. We saw that processes were established that ensured staff had an understanding of abuse and what to do if it was suspected.

We also found that there were arrangements in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. We found changes were made in light of complaints and critical incidents.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cuckfield Medical Practice on 28 March 2019 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 have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

• 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.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
• Staff worked well together as a team and all felt supported to carry out their roles. There was a strong team ethos and culture of working together. Staff received access to training and support to develop their skills
• The practice had utilised the care coordinator role to good effect in the practice supporting patients with complex health and social care needs.
• The practice used information technology to support clinical staff to deliver high levels of care and treatment for patients.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care