This practice is rated as good overall. (Previous inspection 17/03/2015 – 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? – requires improvement

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Newington Road Surgery Limited on 12 June 2018. The practice was last inspected in 2015 and therefore was scheduled for inspection under the five-year inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had 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 routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• The practice had a strong clinical performance.
• Patients told us they were treated with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they could access care when they needed it.
• The leadership at the practice was not cohesive and all partners did not subscribe to the same vision for the future.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

• Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

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 Newington Road Surgery Limited on 17 March 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including dementia).

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

• 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.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
• Staff had received training appropriate to their roles, with the exception of safeguarding training for administration staff. Further training needs had been identified and the training planned.
• Patients said 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.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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.

However there were some areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

• Review the training arrangements for administrative staff in relation to safeguarding children.
• Review the process used by all GPs to monitor follow-up appointments / non-attendance of patients following abnormal blood test results.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

People who used the service told us they were satisfied with the care and treatment they received. People told us they felt their needs and medical issues were taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.

We found that a touch screen facility for booking in for an appointment was available for people as well as reporting to reception so that staff knew they were there. People told us the staff treated them respectfully and were helpful. We saw that staff spoke politely to people and consultations were carried out in private treatment rooms.

Appropriate pre employment checks had been carried out and we found evidence that staff had received regular training, supervisions and appraisals. We found that the service had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service that people received.