Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Whitby Group Practice on 6 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, with the key question of safe rated as requires improvement as the arrangements in respect of medicines management did not assure that risks had been minimised. The full comprehensive report published on 15 December 2016 can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Whitby Group Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 13 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach of regulation we identified in our previous inspection on 6 October 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Care and treatment was provided in a safe way for service users through the proper and safe management of medicines for the purposes of the regulated activity.

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 Whitby Group Practice on 6 October 2016. We visited the main surgery in Whitby and the branch surgery at Robin Hoods Bay during the inspection. 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 with systems in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were mostly assessed and well managed. However, we found the arrangements for managing medicines in the practice did not always keep people safe.
• 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.
• 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 and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Governance systems were in place. An understanding of the performance of the practice was maintained in most areas. However we identified oversight in some areas of medicines management.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

The practice employed an outreach nurse who provided support to patients living in care homes and patients who were housebound.

The practice had a nominated carers champion. 5% of the practice population had been identified as carers and were being provided with options of health care treatment and support.

One of the GP’s has supported the Royal Lifeboat Institute for 25 years. They have been awarded an Honorary Medical Advisor for the Whitby Lifeboat RNLI for their long service. They have been doing the medicals for the lifeboat men and providing life support to them training for around 25 years.

The area where the provider must make improvement is:

Take action to address identified concerns in respect of the management of medicines.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During our announced inspection we spoke with eleven patients, two members of the patient participation group, the registered provider (Dr Sutcliffe), two GP’s, the practice manager, dispensing technicians, two practice nurses, two health care assistants, and one reception member of staff.

Patients who received treatment at the practice told us that they were very happy with the care and treatment they received and they had confidence in the staff. They said “The doctors here saved my life the treatment I have had has been excellent” and “If I need ten minutes I get ten minutes but if I need longer then I get longer”.

Patients expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We saw that patients were given information and support with regards to treatment options and that staff maintained patient’s privacy and confidentiality.

Patients had their medication prescribed and dispensed at the time they needed it and in a safe way.

Staff had received appropriate professional development and training to ensure they could meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff could tell us who they would contact if they had any concerns about child protection issues or abuse of patients. The practice had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service that people received.