Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.

Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with 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.

Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with all staff.

The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.

The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The lead GP had established a system to help ensure that contact with school staff assigned to children on the ‘at risk’ register, were routinely reviewed. Documentary evidence showed that meetings were held with the schools leads for safeguarding at the beginning of each term. There were also arrangements for the lead GPs to liaise with the specialist educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) at a local primary school.

A protocol had been implemented by the practice to ensure that monthly searches by the prescribing office at the practice included the underuse of medicines and a code being added to patient’s records when poor compliance had been noted. Where patients had a diagnosis of memory loss or dementia, GPs were prompted (via the computer system) to review patients prescribed medicines and where appropriate, to consider alternative means of dispensing the medicines.

Where patients experienced poor mental health and did not attend (DNA) for appointments, the practice had a protocol for ensuring the patients well-being. We saw examples of the practice having reviewed patient’s notes following a DNA and where there was cause for concern (indicated in previous consultations), the practice contacted the patient. If contact had not been made, there was a protocol for informing other agencies.

The practice had exceptional IT systems and protocols to ensure patients were safeguarded against risks. Computer system work streams had been incorporated into the software package used by the practice, which followed a review of significant events, complaints and safety alerts received by the practice.

Continue to ensure that systems, processes and practices keep patients safe in relation to infection control and prevention.

Continue to ensure that routine checks for the safe storage of medicines are risk assessed, recorded and maintained.

Continue to ensure that obtaining Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for staff who act as chaperones.

Continue to ensure the business continuity plan (disaster recovery plan) is kept up to date.

Continue to improve the system that identifies patients who are also carers to help ensure that all patients on the practice list who are carers are offered relevant support if required.

Continue to improve the system for monitoring and reviewing practice policies and procedure, to help ensure there is a consistent approach in how they are maintained between the two practices.

Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.

Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with 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.

Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with all staff.

The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.

The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The lead GP had established a system to help ensure that contact with school staff assigned to children on the ‘at risk’ register, were routinely reviewed. Documentary evidence showed that meetings were held with the schools leads for safeguarding at the beginning of each term. There were also arrangements for the lead GPs to liaise with the specialist educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) at a local primary school.

A protocol had been implemented by the practice to ensure that monthly searches by the prescribing office at the practice included the underuse of medicines and a code being added to patient’s records when poor compliance had been noted. Where patients had a diagnosis of memory loss or dementia, GPs were prompted (via the computer system) to review patients prescribed medicines and where appropriate, to consider alternative means of dispensing the medicines.

Where patients experienced poor mental health and did not attend (DNA) for appointments, the practice had a protocol for ensuring the patients well-being. We saw examples of the practice having reviewed patient’s notes following a DNA and where there was cause for concern (indicated in previous consultations), the practice contacted the patient. If contact had not been made, there was a protocol for informing other agencies.

The practice had exceptional IT systems and protocols to ensure patients were safeguarded against risks. Computer system work streams had been incorporated into the software package used by the practice, which followed a review of significant events, complaints and safety alerts received by the practice.

Continue to ensure that systems, processes and practices keep patients safe in relation to infection control and prevention.

Continue to ensure that routine checks for the safe storage of medicines are risk assessed, recorded and maintained.

Continue to ensure that obtaining Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for staff who act as chaperones.

Continue to ensure the business continuity plan (disaster recovery plan) is kept up to date.

Continue to improve the system that identifies patients who are also carers to help ensure that all patients on the practice list who are carers are offered relevant support if required.

Continue to improve the system for monitoring and reviewing practice policies and procedure, to help ensure there is a consistent approach in how they are maintained between the two practices.