This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection November 2015 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hallgarth Surgery on 12 June 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had systems to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice provided a holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care. They used innovative approaches to how this was delivered and actively encouraged.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Results from the National GP Survey were variable when compared to local and national scores.
• The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. They took account of patient needs and preferences.
• Patients were able to access care and treatment from the practice within an acceptable timescale for their needs.
• There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. The practice proactively used performance information to drive improvement.

The area where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review the flooring in both of the patient toilets to ensure they can be cleaned effectively.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out this comprehensive inspection on 18 November 2015.

Overall, we rated this practice as good. Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing well-led, effective, caring, safe and responsive services.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice provided a good standard of care, led by current best practice guidelines. A programme of clinical audit was used to identify where patient outcomes could be improved.
• Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned. Staff could access a variety of training including in-house and company-wide. Clinical staff received protected learning time.
• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
• The practice actively reviewed their performance in the management of long term conditions, and how these services were provided, to improve the patient journey and ease with which they could access the service.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management and by the company as a whole. The practice and federation had over-arching governance arrangements to monitor safety and performance. Staff felt confident in their roles and responsibilities.

We also saw some areas of outstanding practice:

• The service had carried out a comprehensive review of how they implemented the care of long term conditions, and made changes to improve the patient journey.
• The practice had worked innovatively to implement local services, such as a 10 week pain management course.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice