We carried out a review of the data available to us about High Street 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 High Street Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.
This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection November 2015 – Good)
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
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at High Street Surgery on the 9 May 2018 this inspection was carried out as part of our inspection programme.
At this inspection we found:
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at High Street Surgery on 23 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Staff assessed patient’s needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. Staff felt well supported in their roles and were kept up to date with training and professional development.
Systems were in place to deal with emergencies and all staff were trained in basic life support.
There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were good and there were regular checks on the environment and on equipment used.
Overall, patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. However, a small proportion of patient feedback indicated there was room for improvement in some areas.
Patients found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was good continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available the same day.
The practice provided a range of enhanced services to meet the needs of the local population.
The practice had good facilities, including disabled access. It was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
There was a clear leadership and structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
Complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.
The practice learned from events and systems were in place to disseminate learning.
The practice made good use of audits and the results of these were used to improve outcomes for patients.
The areas where the provider should make improvement are:
The practice should consider implementing a more effective system to record/demonstrate the actions taken in response to significant events. This should include clearly documenting: the process of investigation, the conclusions reached and actions taken.
The staff personnel records, for long standing members of staff, require review to ensure all of the required documents relating to workers are maintained.
The practice should consider holding regular practice meetings with all staff groups to share information and be involved in service development.
We saw one area of outstanding practice:
Effective clinical audits were carried out that improved outcomes for patients. We saw an example of a clinical audit into the prevention of duodenal ulcers in elderly patients. The methods, results, conclusions and recommendations of this had been published.
Chief Inspector of General Practice