Archived: Concept House Surgery

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 20 June 2017 – Requires improvement).

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

At our previous inspection on 20 June 2017 we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ for two of the five key questions we inspect against. The service required improvement for providing safe and well-led services. The service was therefore rated as ‘requires improvement’ overall. The full comprehensive report on the June 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Concept House Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We carried out this announced comprehensive inspection at Concept House Surgery on 27 March 2018 to check that the provider had made improvements to the service. We found that action had been taken to improve the service and address previous shortfalls.

Our findings were:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.

• Significant events had been investigated and action had been taken as a result of the learning from events.

• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.

• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were carried out appropriately and there were regular checks on the environment and on equipment used.

• Clinicians assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. The provider routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided.

• Feedback from patients about the care and treatment they received from clinicians was positive.

• Patients told us they were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

• Data showed that outcomes for patients at this practice were similar to outcomes for patients locally and nationally.

• Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

• Patients told us they found it easy to make an appointment and there was good continuity of care.

• The practice had appropriate facilities, including disabled access. It was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

• Complaints had been investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

• There was a clear leadership and staff structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

• The provider had a clear vision to provide a safe, good quality service.

• Feedback from patients was used to make improvements to the service.

• There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement.

Areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review the arrangements for encouraging uptake of childhood immunisations in the patient population.

• Continue to encouragethe uptake of national screening programmes for the patient population.

• Ensure that accurate and appropriately detailed information about how to complain is made readily accessible to patients.

• Introduce a more effective system for monitoring cleanliness.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice