This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection September 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 Orchid House Surgery on 1 May 2018, as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• 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 routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• A total of 312 patients, which is approximately 4% of practice population, had been identified as carers.
• The practice had a small number of patients who identified as Trans People and some of whom were undergoing gender reassignment procedures. The practice ensured that these patients had access to appropriate support groups and were able to see a regular GP when possible, to promote continuity of care.
• Uptake rates for the vaccines given were significantly above the target percentage of 90%. With results for all four indicators being 98% or above.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Continue to act on relevant medicine alerts received by the practice.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Orchid House Surgery on 8 September 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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, with the exception of those relating to recruitment checks.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and 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 upon.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice had recently appointed a full time Paramedic Practitioner who offered rapid home visits first thing in the morning for patients in need of a visit.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During this inspection we spoke with seven patients, which included representatives from the surgery’s patient participation group, two GP’s, one of whom was also the registered manager, the practice manager, nursing and administration staff.

Patients were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was maintained. One patient told us, “We have some marvellous doctors here and some caring ones as well.” Patients were involved in decisions about their treatment. One patient told us, “Options are put to me regarding the treatment.”

Patient’s needs were assessed and treatment arranged. One patient told us, “My medicines are regularly reviewed. In fact they were changed yesterday.” Another patient said, “They persevere. I had two tests which came back negative. They asked me if I wanted a third test, which came back positive.”

The surgery had effective arrangements to ensure cleanliness and actions were taken to reduce the risk of infection.

The provider operated an effective recruitment process and ensured that appropriate checks were carried out prior to staff starting work.

The provider monitored the quality of the service and made improvements where necessary.