This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating October 2016 – Good)

The key questions at this inspection 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 Willow Green Surgery on 22 June 2018 as part of our 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.
• Staff involved patients in their care and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect
• Patient feedback on the service provided was positive.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they could access care when they needed it.
• Staff enjoyed working at the practice and felt supported by management.
• Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Improve the recording of significant events and ensure actions agreed are followed up.
• Provide awareness training for all staff on the ‘red flag’ sepsis symptoms that might be reported by patients and how to respond.
• Continue efforts to increase the uptake of cervical screening.
• Complete the full cycle for audits undertaken so that improvements to care and treatment can be demonstrated.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Willow Green Surgery on 12 October 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 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.

We saw three areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice had been awarded a “Pace setter” award in their work in caring for children. This included working in partnership with local paediatric and A&E consultants to improve access to care. The practice had also developed a sick children’s assessment template that was used by practice nurses, paramedics and GPs.
• The practice had thorough care plans in place for patients with long term conditions which were able to be viewed electronically by other healthcare professionals such as paramedics. The care plans gave full details of each patient’s baseline observations and how the patient usually managed their condition. This enabled the health care professional on scene to recognise any deterioration in the patient’s usual condition.
• The practice had developed a “medical passport” for young people with learning disabilities which detailed information pertinent to the patient. For example, it documented how the patient showed they were in pain and how they reacted to strange places.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice