Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall.

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

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Boteju and Partners on 18 January 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. Patients’ needs were assessed using clinical templates that had been formulated by the lead GP using best practice guidance such asthose provided by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and locally by the clinical commissioning group (CCG). We found that these templates aided appropriate monitoring of treatment and care provision.

• A programme of clinical audit was in place that demonstrated quality improvement.

• There was a process to identify, understand, monitor and address current and future risks including risks to patient safety. However we found that some processes related to employment checks and record keeping of identified risks needed improvement.

• GP patient survey results indicated patients were positive about the care received, practice opening times, the ability to get an appointment and the ease of being seen on time. However it also noted dissatisfaction in relation to getting through to the practice by phone and with the experience of making an appointment.

• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

• Performance for antibiotic items prescribed, that could be used when others had failed, as a percentage of similar antibiotics prescribed, were lower than average compared against the local CCG and national averages. This was in line with national guidance of using these medicines sparingly, to avoid drug-resistant bacteria developing.

• Staff had lead roles within the practice with a strong focus on patient centred care.

• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

• Feedback from patients we spoke with and from the CQC comments cards was positive regarding the care received at the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Complete the review of the immunisation status of clinical and non clinical staff and ensure a documented process to evidence compliance.
• Develop a more formal approach to employment checks and staff induction.
• Continue to monitor and ensure improvement to national GP patient survey results, and improve patient experience of getting through to the practice by phone and with making an appointment.
• Improve record keeping of identified risks, for example control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH).

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 Woodview Medical Practice on 27 October 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• The practice had good facilities including disabled access. All consulting rooms were situated on the ground floor with offices on the lower ground floor. The practice had installed an electric automated door to give better accessibility to patients.

• 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.
• 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. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service including having a patient participation group (PPG).
• 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.
• 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice