Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Long Furlong Medical Partnership, Abingdon.

Long Furlong Medical Partnership in Abingdon 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 3rd July 2017

Long Furlong Medical Partnership is managed by Long Furlong Medical Partnership.

Contact Details:

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 2017-07-03
    Last Published 2017-07-03

Local Authority:

    Oxfordshire

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.

31st May 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr E. A. Allan & Partners on 29 September 2016. The practice was rated as inadequate for well led, requires improvement for safe and effective and good for caring and responsive. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the September 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr E. A. Allan & Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

An announced comprehensive inspection was undertaken on 31 May 2017. We found significant improvements and overall the practice is now rated as good. Specifically, we have rated the practice good for the provision of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. All population groups have also been 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. In particular, the practice had reviewed how safety alerts were received into the practice, had clarified the role of the chaperone and who could undertake these duties, reviewed the training requirements and updates for staff, ensured blank prescriptions were stored and logged appropriately, had purchased data loggers for the fridges, commenced recording all samples sent for cervical screening and ensured patient group directions were administered in line with current legislation.
  • 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 were able to make an appointment with a named GP, although the waiting time could be up to six weeks. Urgent appointments were 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.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

However, there was one area of practice where the provider should make improvements;

  • Ensure carer status of patients is clearly indicated to clinicians.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29th September 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr E. A. Allan & Partners on 29 September 2016. The practice was rated as inadequate for well led, requires improvement for safe and effective and good for caring and responsive. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the September 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr E. A. Allan & Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

An announced comprehensive inspection was undertaken on 31 May 2017. We found significant improvements and overall the practice is now rated as good. Specifically, we have rated the practice good for the provision of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. All population groups have also been 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. In particular, the practice had reviewed how safety alerts were received into the practice, had clarified the role of the chaperone and who could undertake these duties, reviewed the training requirements and updates for staff, ensured blank prescriptions were stored and logged appropriately, had purchased data loggers for the fridges, commenced recording all samples sent for cervical screening and ensured patient group directions were administered in line with current legislation.
  • 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 were able to make an appointment with a named GP, although the waiting time could be up to six weeks. Urgent appointments were 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.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

However, there was one area of practice where the provider should make improvements;

  • Ensure carer status of patients is clearly indicated to clinicians.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

 

 

Latest Additions: