Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at East One Health on 16 February 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 16 February 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for East One Health on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection carried out on 25 May 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 16 February 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety. Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.
• Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment 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.
• We found that the practice had taken a systematic approach to review the findings of the previous inspection and implemented actions to rectify all areas that were recognised as requiring improvement.
• The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

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 East One Health on 16 February 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 16 February 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for East One Health on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection carried out on 25 May 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 16 February 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety. Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.
• Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment 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.
• We found that the practice had taken a systematic approach to review the findings of the previous inspection and implemented actions to rectify all areas that were recognised as requiring improvement.
• The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

At our last inspection on 27 December 2013 we found the provider had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that staff always treated people with consideration and respect. There was mixed feedback about how people using the service were received by reception staff. Some people told us the reception staff were friendly and always helpful, while others described them as unwelcoming and abrupt.

The provider was not able to demonstrate that Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks had been undertaken, to check whether staff had criminal convictions, before they started to work at the practice.

During our inspection on 22 May 2014, managers were able to demonstrate they had taken action to address previous concerns. We found the provider had made progress and most people that we spoke to during the visit said that reception and other staff treated them with consideration and respect. The provider was able to demonstrate that DBS checks had been undertaken.

We spoke with two of the GPs, a practice nurse, the practice manager and her deputy, a patients' advocate and two members of the reception staff. We also spoke with five people who used the service.

Some staff did not always treat people with consideration and respect. Some people told us the reception staff were friendly and always helpful, while others described them as unwelcoming and abrupt.

Most of the people who spoke with us said they were satisfied with the quality of care and treatment provided by the practice. One patient told us, "I am very happy. Everything is fine." Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

The provider was not able to demonstrate that they operated an effective recruitment procedure in order that no person is employed without all the necessary checks.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.