The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Hattersley Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Hattersley Health Centre, Hattersley Road East, Hattersley, Hyde, Cheshire, SK14 3EH (0161) 368 4161

Provided and run by:
Hattersley Group Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hattersley Group Practice 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 Hattersley Group Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

20 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Hattersley Group Practice on 20 February 2020. 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.

28 March 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hattersley Group Practice on 28 March 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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 and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients experience of accessing care and treatment in a timely way was mixed, however the practice had made changes to the telephone and appointment system to help improve patients experience.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

During the inspection we noted some outstanding features for example:

  • The practice was creative in their approach to working with patients and the local community to improve people’s health and well-being. In October 2018 they set up a health champions programme. They successfully recruited and trained 16 health champions from diverse backgrounds. They had developed a range of activities which ran in the practice and community for example, weekly activity/drop in and tai chi sessions and education events, including mental health awareness hosted by one of the practice GPs. They also worked with a local homeless charity to make and fill ‘Bags of Care’ with toiletries and other essentials. We were provided with numerous example of how the health champion initiative has had a positive impact on patient’s well-being.
  • The practice provided young people with better access to mental health service. The practice funded a young people’s counselling service to provide drop in sessions at the practice and three local secondary schools.

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

  • Continue to monitor patient experience of the appointment and telephone system and review if the changes made have resulted in improved patients experience.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

03/02/2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

On 8 April 2015 we carried out a full comprehensive inspection at Hattersley Group Practice. The inspection was rated as requires improvements and improvements were specifically required in the following areas:

  • Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014, Need for consent

  • Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014, Good governance

  • Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activity) Regulations 2014, Fit and proper persons employed.

We carried out a focussed inspection on 10 December 2015 to check that improvements had been made to Regulation 17.

This inspection took place on 3 February 2016 and was a focussed inspection to check improvements had been made to Regulation 11 and 19 and the improvements to Regulation 17 had been sustained. We inspected areas of each domain. We found all the required improvements had been made and the practice is now 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 usually treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it difficult to make an appointment with a GP. However, we saw evidence of on the day appointments being available and routine appointments being available within two working days.
  • Staff understood consent for patients under the age of 16 and patients with learning disabilities.
  • 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.


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10/12/2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

On 8 April 2015 we carried out a full comprehensive inspection of Hattersley Group Practice. This resulted in a Warning Notice being issued against the provider on 4 August 2015. The Notice advised the provider that the practice was failing to meet the required standards relating to Regulation 17 of the Health & Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Good governance.

The Warning Notice specifically made reference to clinical audits, seeking and acting on feedback from patients, demonstrating a commitment to maintaining the safety of patients, complying with the conditions of registration and recording and learning from significant events.

On 10 December 2015 we undertook a focused inspection to check that the practice had met the requirements of the Warning Notice. At this inspection we found that the practice had satisfied the requirements of the Notice.

Specifically we found that:

  • A programme of clinical audits cycles was in place. Several clinical audits had been carried out and these included audits carried out as a result of safety alerts being received. Some re-audits had been carried out and results were monitored to ensure improvements were sustained.

  • The system for recording and processing significant events had improved. There was a process for recording events, discussing them as a practice group, determining learning needs, and later reviewing them to check there had been no reoccurrences.

  • The actions required following the most recent fire risk assessment had been carried out. Also the practice had proactively found further improvements that could be made relating to safety signage, and put these improvements in place.

  • The practice had an active patient participation group (PPG) that met regularly. They kept evidence of suggestions made and improvements put in place and changes to the practice made following discussions with the PPG. They monitored the NHS Choices website and responded to comments made on the site, and they also monitored the NHS Friends and Family results.

  • Changes had been made to the registration of the practice and all the partners were included on the registration.

The rating awarded to the practice following our full comprehensive inspection on 8 April 2015 remains unchanged. The practice will be re-inspected in relation to their rating in the future.


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

8 April 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hattersley Group Practice on 8 April 2015. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

It was found to be inadequate for providing effective services. Improvements were required for providing safe, caring, responsive and well-led services.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. However not all significant events were correctly recorded and therefore areas for improvement could not be considered.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to recruitment checks.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were usually involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, although these were not always accurate, particularly in relation to staff training.
  • The practice held regular meetings for clinicians and practice staff and these were minuted.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider must:

  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary pre-employment checks for all staff.
  • Ensure there are systems in place to regularly monitor and assess aspects of the practice, including completing clinical audit cycles and collecting the views of patients. Where risks are identified plans must be put in place to reduce risks in a timely manner.
  • Ensure relevant staff are aware of the Gillick Competencies and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in relation to obtaining consent from patients.

In addition the provider should:

  • Review policies and procedures to make sure they are reflective of the requirements of the practice. This relates in particular to the frequency training is required.
  • Provide training or information to staff so they know their responsibilities in relation to chaperoning patients.
  • Standardise checks such as new patient health checks so staff are not carrying out invasive procedures such as blood testing unnecessarily.
  • Review the cleaning schedule and check all aspects of cleaning the practice are included.
  • Proactively gather the opinions of patients in order to assess the quality of the service provided.
  • Monitor access to appointments, both in an emergency and for routine issues, so that patients can attend at times that are convenient to them. A protocol around access to appointments should be followed by all staff.
  • Risk assess the possible impact of the defibrillator not being available from 5pm until 6pm, while the practice was open to patients.
  • Ensure significant events are correctly recorded, assessed and reviewed, and all safety checks, such as fire checks, are up to date.

Where, as in this instance, a provider is rated as inadequate for one of the five key questions or one of the six population groups it will be re-inspected no longer than six months after the initial rating is confirmed. If, after re-inspection, it has failed to make sufficient improvement, and is still rated as inadequate for any key question or population group, we will place it into special measures. Being placed into special measures represents a decision by CQC that a service has to improve within six months to avoid CQC taking steps to cancel the provider’s registration.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

30 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Hattersley Group Practice is located in the Hattersley area of Hyde. It provides primary care services to 5460 patients.

We inspected the service on 30 May 2014 and we spent the day at the location. All the regulated activities the provider was registered to provide were inspected. These were diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services and treatment of disease, disorder and injury. 

The practice was accessible to patients with physical disabilities. All areas were visibly clean, hand-washing facilities were in each clinical room and all areas relating the prevention and control of infection had been considered.

Appointments could be booked up to two weeks in advance and ‘on the day’ urgent appointments were also available. Telephone consultations had been introduced in the twelve months prior to our inspection so that patients were able to speak with a GP who would make them an appointment if this was necessary.

As part of the inspection we spoke with nine patients, and also took into account the comments made by 11 patients on comments cards that had been completed prior to our inspection.

We found that four regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 were not being met:

  • An effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service was not in place. The views of patients were not sought so the provider could not have an informed view of what patients thought about the service. Regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
  • There was a complaints system in place but this was not adequately brought to the attention of patients. Complaints were not always fully investigated with no record being kept of verbal complaints. Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
  • Pre-employment checks were not always carried out to ensure staff had the required skills, experience and qualifications for their role. Criminal records checks had not been carried out for staff who had one to one contact with patients. Regulation 21 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
  • There was no system in place to ensure staff received appropriate training or professional development. Staff had not had a supervision or appraisal meeting with their line manager for over two years. The practice manager was not line-managed and did not receive support in the form of training or supervision meetings. Regulation 23 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.