The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Green Meadows Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Brook House, Heatherwood Hospital, Brook Avenue, Ascot, SL5 7GB (01344) 621627

Provided and run by:
Green Meadows Partnership

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of inspection: 3 to 6 February 2025. Green Meadows is a GP practice and delivers services to 9263 patients from a single location under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Profile Practice Profiles states its patient population has a mixed ethnicity that is predominantly white. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the higher decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This inspection considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report. We carried out this inspection to follow up on concerns around patient access and patient experience when accessing care and treatment identified at our previous inspection in July 2023 which rated the service good overall. However, the responsive key question was rated requires improvement. We assessed all 7 quality statements across the responsive key question. We have scored each of these quality statements. The service retains the overall rating of good and the rating for the responsive key question improved to good. People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service has made significant improvements in access options and proactively promoted inclusivity and equal opportunities. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

6 July 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive at Green Meadows Surgery on 6 July 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

We rated the key questions as follows:

Safe - good

Effective - good

Caring - good

Responsive – requires improvement

Well-led - good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Green Meadows Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection because our inspection priorities include services that have been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for over 12 months without being inspected. Green Meadows Surgery moved to new premises on 17 November 2021 and because of this move, the service was eligible for inspection.

How we carried out the inspection/review

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing facilities.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.
  • Requesting patients to send us feedback about their experiences.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall. We rated the practice Good for providing safe, effective, caring, and well-led services. However, we rated the practice Requires improvement for providing responsive services. We found:

  • Systems and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm existed and operated effectively.
  • When things went wrong, the practice reviewed what had happened, made changes where necessary and shared learning with staff.
  • There was a system to manage the stock of emergency medicines and equipment and we found this monitored regularly to ensure equipment and medicines were available.
  • Staff had the appropriate knowledge, skills and training to carry out their roles confidently.
  • The practice worked effectively with system partners to ensure information was shared appropriately, including where referrals to other services were required.
  • The practice treated patients with compassion, respect and kindness and ensured patients were involved in decisions about their care.
  • The practice listened to feedback from patients and used it to improve the quality and delivery of services.
  • Patient feedback was not always positive about the experiences of accessing care and treatment and patients reported they could not always access care in a timely manner.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Leadership and management had effective systems and processes which gave them oversight of performance and risks within the practice. Where improvements or risks were identified, action was taken.
  • The leadership and management were visible and approachable, and staff were confident to raise concerns.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to monitor the systems to improve patient access and consider further opportunities to improve patients’ experiences when accessing care and treatment.
  • Improve the accuracy of information in patients’ clinical records. Specifically the coding of medication reviews.
  • Continue to improve the uptake of cervical screening appointments.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care