The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Shifnal Medical Practice Also known as Shifnal and Priorslee Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Shrewsbury Road, Shifnal, Shropshire, TF11 8AJ (01952) 460414

Provided and run by:
Shifnal Medical Practice

All Inspections

26 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Shifnal Medical Practice on 26 November 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.

26 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Shifnal Medical Practice on 8 June 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, with requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the June 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Shifnal Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 26 January 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their improvement plan in relation to the areas identified in our previous inspection on 8 June 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording events such as complaints. The practice had introduced six monthly reviews of all complaints received in the period for trend analysis as well as an annual review. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. A training planner was in place to ensure staff were up to date with infection prevention and control training, and this was included at staff induction and staff had attended Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) training.
  • The practice had improved the maintenance of recruitment documentation to ensure staff references and clinical staff verification checks with their appropriate professional body were consistently recorded.
  • 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 and the senior GP attended Patient Participation Group meetings.
  • 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

8 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Shifnal Medical Practice on 8 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good and requires improvement in providing safe services.

Our key findings 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 spoken with 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 demonstrated a proactive approach to the raised issues of access and had implemented measures as a direct result.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat current patient numbers and meet their needs. However, patients raised concerns as the current practice premises had limited space and there were plans and proposals for up to 1,600 new homes in the local area.
  • 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.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Provide infection prevention and control (IPC) training at induction and regular refresher training for all staff.

  • Improve the maintenance of recruitment documentation to ensure staff references and clinical staff verification checks with their appropriate professional body are consistently recorded.

  • Implement a staff training planner which includes specialist training for clinical staff.

  • Consider staff training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

  • Improve the documentation of the learning derived from complaints.

  • Consider GP attendance at the patient participation group meetings.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

19 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with five patients face to face, we communicated with two by email and we spoke with six members of staff.

When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to. One patient told us: "I'm used to the tests I have. They explain and I agree to them". We found that when minor surgery had been carried out written consent had been requested from patients before the surgery had commenced.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. The patients we spoke with provided positive feedback about their care. A patient told us: "It's very good actually". Patients received their medicines when they needed them.

Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from harm.

We found that staff had received appropriate training for the roles they carried out. They also had regular appraisals. This meant that they had been appropriately assessed regarding their competency.

The provider had a system in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system to regularly obtain opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by the practice staff.