The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Puckeridge Surgery Also known as Standon & Puckeridge Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Station Road, Puckeridge, Ware, Hertfordshire, SG11 1TF (01920) 823860

Provided and run by:
Dr Partington & Partners

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Puckeridge Surgery on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about The Puckeridge Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

17 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Puckeridge Surgery on 17 July 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

3 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Standon and Puckeridge Surgery on 3 February 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 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and that 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review medicines stock control procedures to ensure medicines are within the expiry date recommended by the manufacturers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

28 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We found the service to be welcoming with friendly staff. Information was displayed for people using the service, including health promotion, access to support services, information about the practice and other services available. Appointments could be made in person or by telephone.

We spoke with eight people who all spoke highly of services provided to them. We also spoke with staff who said they enjoyed working in the practice. One told us, "We really care about people." Another said, "There's a really nice atmosphere here."

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual wishes. One person said, "Doctor's receptionists have a really bad reputation, but they're all really nice here.' Another told us, 'My whole family come here. I can get an appointment easily. Everything is fine.'

We saw that there was a system to ensure repeat prescriptions were available promptly and medicines that were kept at the practice were stored safely.

Staff were supported to complete both mandatory and additional training, received an annual performance appraisal and were able to discuss their individual training needs with the lead GP. However, there was no formal system in place for staff supervision.

The practice used both electronic and paper records. The paper records were stored safely and the electronic system was restricted to those authorised to use it by the use of a secure password.