The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Wickham Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Houghton Way, Wickham, Fareham, Hampshire, PO17 5GU (01329) 833121

Provided and run by:
Wickham Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

23 September 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We previously carried out an announced focused inspection at Wickham Surgery, on 1 October 2019 as part of our inspection programme. The inspection was carried out following an annual regulatory review of information available to us. The inspection looked at the Effective, Responsive and Well-led key questions. We rated the practice as Good overall, and for each key question, however we rated the long-term conditions population group as Requires Improvement due to some outlying performance data. You can read the full report by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wickham Surgery on our website at .

We were mindful of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what type of inspection was necessary and proportionate, this was therefore a desk-based review. On 23 September 2020, we completed a desk-based review to confirm that the practice had carried out its plan to improve its Quality and Outcome Framework performance data, that was identified as requiring improvement at our previous inspection in October 2019.

At this desk-based review we found that the practice had sufficiently improved its Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) performance data, particularly in relation to its exception reporting of long-term conditions. The practice is now rated Good for the long-term conditions population group. We previously rated the practice as Good for providing Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led services and Good for all other population groups.

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

  • what we found when we reviewed the information sent to us by the provider
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider.

We have rated the long-term conditions population group as Good because:

  • The practice’s latest Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) performance data demonstrated an improvement. Specifically, the exception reporting rates associated with those patients diagnosed with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder receiving an annual review. These rates were now in line or better than local and national averages.
  • The actions taken by the practice to improve its performance data indicated a higher number of patients had received effective care for their personal needs, compared with when we last inspected the practice in October 2019.

Although not part of our previous recommendations, the practice provided additional evidence to demonstrate:

  • In this year’s national GP Patient Survey, the practice was rated the highest in the locality for overall patient satisfaction, as well as above the local and national averages in every area of the survey.

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

01 Oct

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We decided to undertake an announced focused inspection at Wickham Surgery on 1 October 2019 following our annual regulatory review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Are services at this location effective?
  • Are the services at this location responsive to patients’ needs?
  • Are the services at this location well-led?

The practice’s annual regulatory review did not indicate that the quality of care had changed in relation to Safe and Caring. As a result, the ratings from the practice’s previous inspection from 2015 still stand in those key questions.

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 but requires improvement for the population group relating to patients with long-term conditions.

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. However, exception reporting rates relating to long-term conditions was higher than local and national averages.
  • The practice had implemented new processes to improve its exception reporting performance but the impact of these changes was not yet demonstrated. Unverified data showed rates had not improved.
  • The practice’s repeat prescribing process had not been adequate enough to ensure patients were accessing regular medicine reviews appropriately but the practice had taken steps to change this and were in the process of embedding a new process.
  • 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 could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • The practice responded to significant events, complaints and identified shortfalls in its own processes in a timely and comprehensive manner.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

  • The practice had devised and implemented a pilot to support patients experiencing poor mental health. The pilot completed in association with Solent MIND involved offering those patients 30 minute appointments with a mental health practitioner. Preliminary data showed that patients, having seen the mental health practitioner, were then actively seeking further additional support in the community. The pilot had led to the development of a social prescribing model having been adopted by the local primary care network in other practices to support their own patients.

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

  • Continue to review performance data, such as any Quality and Outcome Framework indicators, to fully embed new systems and processes relating to patient care.
  • Continue to review repeat prescriptions to fully embed the new system and process to ensure patient treatment is appropriate.

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

19 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Smallwood and Partners on 19 November 2015. 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 with a named GP 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.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

A routine inspection took place in January 2014 which identified that people were not protected from the risk of unsafe management of medicines by making appropriate arrangements for the recording of medicines and for having arrangements for safe administration. This concern was judged to have had a minor impact on people who used the service.

The provider was required to submit a plan detailing the action they were taking and the date at which they would be compliant. The provider told us in their plan that they would be compliant by 21 April 2014.

At this inspection we found that the provider had taken appropriate measures to achieve compliance with this regulation.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

28 January 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we found the service to be welcoming with friendly staff. We saw that on arrival at the service people could speak to reception staff or use the touch in booking screen. People told us staff treated them respectfully and were helpful. One person told us: "The staff are very polite."

People told us that their treatment was clearly explained to them and they were able to ask questions and make choices about their treatment or medication. This enabled people to make informed decisions about their treatment. One person told us, 'I am very impressed in how I am included in decisions about my treatment'. Another said, 'I am very involved in my treatment'.

We saw that staff spoke politely to people and consultations were carried out in private treatment rooms. Information was clearly displayed for people, including health promotion, access to support services and information about the practice and the services provided.

Care and treatment was delivered in a way that ensured that people's needs were met. People we spoke with were very positive about their experiences of care and treatment at the practice. Comments made included "It has a chemist on site and is pretty good at meeting your needs" and "I have a very sympathetic GP who is empathetic and sincere".

Policy and procedures were in place for reporting concerns in relation to both adult and child protection issues. Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. Patients we spoke with confirmed that they were treated well and felt safe.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. One person who used the service told us, 'There is sometimes confusion with dispensing medicines'.

Patients said they felt that there were enough staff and that staff had the right skills and experience to meet their needs. One told us that they had received care from 'professionals'. Another said the staff were very welcoming. They also said, 'All aspects of the practice is well equipped with knowledge".

There were formal mechanisms and documentation in place to indicate the practice was able to monitor or assure the quality of the service people received.