Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Elm Trees Surgery on 10 May 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.
• Although national GP patient survey results were below average, patients told us on the day of our inspection, and through completed comment cards, that 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 could get an appointment in a reasonable time with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• The practice had adequate 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 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Continue to implement measures to improve patient satisfaction with the service provided.
• Consider providing access to a hearing loop to aid communication with patients who are hard of hearing.
• Proactively identify and support more patients who are also carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During our inspection we spoke with six people using the service, the practice manager, three GP's and two other staff. We viewed four staff files. People told us the service they received was satisfactory. They said that staff were friendly and polite and a good standard of care was provided. Comments included, "I've been coming for 14 years, all the doctors are very good" and "I can usually get an appointment when I need one, it's very rare you have to wait long."

People had confidence in the skills, knowledge and professionalism of all staff and felt they had a good relationship with the GP's. They said that staff were adequately trained to meet their needs.

The provider had safeguarding procedures in place and these were being followed by staff.

Robust systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided including annual satisfaction surveys, input from a Patient Participation Group (PPG), audits and risk assessments. Where shortfalls were identified, improvements had been made to address them.