Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Eskdaill Medical, Prospect House, 121 Lower Street, Kettering.

Eskdaill Medical in Prospect House, 121 Lower Street, Kettering is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning services, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 26th August 2016

Eskdaill Medical is managed by Eskdaill Medical.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Eskdaill Medical
      Eskdaill Medical
      Prospect House
      121 Lower Street
      Kettering
      NN16 8DN
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01536526526
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2016-08-26
    Last Published 2016-08-26

Local Authority:

    Northamptonshire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

9th February 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Eskdaill Medical on 09 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The practice had a clear vision and had recognised the needs of patients in the community it served.

  • The partners had worked constructively to instil an open and transparent approach to safety. A clear system, which was made known to all staff, was in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • Risks to patients were identified, assessed and appropriately managed. For example, the practice implemented appropriate recruitment checks for new staff, undertook regular clinical reviews and followed up-to-date medicines management protocols.

  • We saw that the staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff were encouraged to access training to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Feedback from patients was consistently positive. Patients we spoke with told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Comments from patients on the 25 completed CQC comment cards confirmed these views.

  • Results from the GP Patient Survey July 2015 were generally positive, with some outcomes higher than local and national outcomes. For example, 80% of patients would recommend the practice to someone new to the area, which was above the local and national averages.

  • Information about services and how to complain or provide feedback was available in the waiting area and published on the practice website. Where appropriate improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns. Outcomes from complaints were shared and learning opportunities identified as appropriate.

  • Appointments were readily available. Urgent appointments were available the same day, although not always with the patients named or usual GP. 75% of patients described their experience of making an appointment as good, which was higher than local and national averages.

  • The practice shared a purpose built, modern building with other care providers. They had access to good facilities and modern equipment in order to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and we noted there was positive outlook among the staff, with good levels of moral in the practice. Staff said they felt supported by management.

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients in a variety of ways, 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

 

 

Latest Additions: