Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this practice on 3 March 2016. We issued a requirement notice in relation to good governance. The practice sent in an action plan informing us about what they would do to make the necessary improvements:

The practice had not undertaken a robust legionella risk assessment.

• The practice had not ensured that all medicines needing cold storage were kept in an appropriate fridge.

• The practice had not ensured that dispensing staff had received a documented competency assessment.

• The practice had not ensured that oxygen warning signs were displayed on doors where it was held.

They told us these issues would be addressed by 30 June 2016 and provided us with evidence to show they had taken the action to address the concerns.

We undertook a desk top review on 10 October 2016 to make a judgement about whether their actions had addressed the requirements.

The overall rating for the practice is good. You can read our previous report by selecting the ‘all reports' link for on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

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 Thorney Medical Practice on 3 March 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 the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Urgent appointments with a GP were available on the same day.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• 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 practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are;

• Ensure a Legionella policy and risk assessment are in place.
• Oxygen warning signs are displayed on doors where it is held.
• Ensure all medications needing cold storage are kept in an appropriate fridge.
• Ensure dispensing staff have received a documented competency assessment.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are;

• Ensure prescription forms are tracked in line with national guidance.
• Have a system in place to check minor surgery histology specimen results are returned from the laboratory.
• Ensure phlebotomy is only undertaken in rooms with flooring and surfaces that meet the requirements of the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We found there were systems in place to manage the prevention and control of infections. Patients, staff and other visitors were safe from the risk of acquiring a health care associated infection.

The premises appeared visibly clean, were well lit and warm. Statutory inspections of water systems, electrical equipment and other health and safety checks had been implemented. The premises and its equipment were safe for patients, staff and other visitors to access.

A valid consent was obtained from patients or their representative before any care or treatment was provided. This included that for minor operations and immunisation programmes. Patients' advanced decisions about their future care were respected.

Patients’ care needs were based upon an assessment at their initial registration at the surgery. One patient said, "I can always get to see the GP of my choice. I never have to wait long for an appointment". The majority of patients we spoke with told us that they had a positive experience of using the services offered by Thorney Medical Practice and its Eye branch surgery.

There were systems in place to manage the prevention and control of infections. However, we found that these were not always effective. Patients, staff and other visitors were at risk of acquiring a health care associated infection. We could not be confident that spillages would be safely cleaned up.

The premises were well lit, warm, secure and smelt clean. However, statutory inspections of water systems, electrical equipment and other health and safety checks had not always been reliably completed. There was a risk that the premises and its equipment were not safe for patients, staff and other visitors to access.