The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: St Catherine's Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

St Pauls Medical Centre, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 4DP (01242) 215005

Provided and run by:
St Catherine's Surgery

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

9 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about St Catherine's Surgery on 9 October 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.

28 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Catherine’s Surgery on 28 April 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 several areas of outstanding practice:

  • There was a dedicated nurse practitioner who visited housebound patients and those at risks of hospital admissions who also carried out annual reviews and review of long-term conditions. The practice worked with the other four practices in the building on a rotational basis to provide urgent home visits everyday and they all shared access to patient records so that the GP could view and update patient records when undertaking urgent home visits.

  • The practice provided two drop in clinics each week for children under the age of five. Patients can drop in and see either the GP who led in this population group or the advanced nurse practitioner.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three patients during the inspection and observed how staff interacted with others. Although some people mentioned minor areas for improvement, such as parking and phone access, they were very positive about the level of care received from the reception staff, doctors and nurses.

One person said clinicians 'work with me and give me information'. Another patient told us that GPs were 'approachable and work with you in partnership'. They went on to say they had confidence and trust in the clinicians who 'were wonderful and completely there for me'.

Staff were aware of the need to maintain the confidentiality and dignity of patients. The reception area had been made more confidential but further work was planned. The practice environment was hygienic and welcoming. Plans were being developed to make the surgery more accessible for people with a disability.

Staff had a good knowledge of child safeguarding and were now gaining a clearer understanding of adult safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People we spoke with felt safe in the care of the practice. The practice was clearly focused on learning from mistakes and improving. Following the inspection, the practice manager told us they would review the emergency equipment checking system. The practice had also made a notable effort to get feedback from patients in a variety of ways. Complaints were dealt with sensitively.