The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

New Horizons Medical Partnership

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Hazel Farm Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO40 8WU (023) 8066 3839

Provided and run by:
New Horizons Medical Partnership

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about New Horizons Medical Partnership 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 New Horizons Medical Partnership, you can give feedback on this service.

30 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about New Horizons Medical Partnership on 30 August 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.

22 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Forest Gate Surgery, 1 Hazel Farm Road, Totton, Southampton, SO40 8WU on 22 June 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 been trained to provide them with 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice;

One of the GPs at the practice had received a letter of commendation from the clinical commissioning group (CCG) prescribing lead for their work, including audits and leadership in practice prescribing. This included identifying any anomalies in prescribing at the practice and addressing the prescribing of individual people who were responsible for anomalies for example, improving the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribing.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

27 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Patients' diversity, values and human rights were respected. During our visit we saw consultations with the GP and Practice Nurse took place in single rooms that afforded privacy and confidentiality. We observed patients' phoning the practice for appointments or advice were treated with respect and addressed by name.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patient's safety and welfare. We saw there were treatment plans in place for managing chronic diseases, such as diabetes and chronic heart disease. The surgery invited patients to attend the surgery at regular intervals for the management of their illness.

Doctors told us and we saw that medicine reviews were flagged on the system so they were able to carry out reviews where possible during usual consultations. From a review of patient notes we saw that allergies were clearly shown on the system enabling GPs to prescribe appropriately. This meant that medicines were prescribed and given to patients appropriately.

All clinical staff were required to provide evidence of their professional qualifications and registration. We saw that the GPs were on the Performer's List, which aims to provide further reassurance to members of the public that GPs practicing in the NHS are suitably qualified, have kept up to date with their training and have had the relevant checks. All nursing staff were registered with the Nursing and midwifery council (NMC) and copies of up to date registrations were held in their personnel files.

The practice participated in the quality and outcomes framework (QOF). The QOF is a national system which uses financial incentives to encourage high quality care by GPs. It measures the quality of the clinical care, organisation of the practice and patient experience. There were systems in place to monitor services and record performance against the quality and outcomes framework.