The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Richmond Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Richmond Close, Fleet, Hampshire, GU52 7US (01252) 811466

Provided and run by:
Drs Sinclair, Hatley, Gossage & Sundaralingham

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

24 July 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We previously carried out an announced focused inspection at Richmond Surgery on 4 December 2019 as part of our inspection programme. We rated the practice as Good overall, however we found a breach of regulations and rated Well led as Requires Improvement. You can read the full report by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Richmond 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 24 July 2020, we carried out the desk-based review to confirm that the practice had carried out its plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach of regulations that we identified at our previous inspection in December 2019.

We found that the practice is now meeting those requirements and we have amended the rating for this practice accordingly. The practice is now rated Good for the provision of Well led services. We previously rated the practice as Good for providing Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive services.

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 Well led as Good because:

  • The practice had identified actions to take in response to our last inspection in December 2019.
  • They had reviewed the PGD and PSD processes to ensure they were compliant with legislation and offered support and training where required. (PGDs and PSDs are legal authorisations for a non-prescribing clinician to administer a given medicine).
  • Staff had been offered training on maintaining the cold chain for medicines and medicine fridge temperature checking. This included escalation processes for temperatures outside the recommended range.

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

4 December 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Richmond Surgery on 4 December 2019 as part of our inspection programme and following our annual review of the information available to us. We last inspected Richmond Surgery on 15 October 2014 (comprehensive inspection) & 17 July 2015 (focused follow up inspection). Following that inspection, the practice was rated as good overall.

This inspection looked at the following key questions; Effective and well led. We did not check whether this practice was providing safe, caring and responsive services at this inspection because our monitoring of the practice indicated no significant changes since the last comprehensive inspection (October 2014).

The rating of good for the key questions of safe, caring and responsive, has been carried forward from the last inspection.

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 and good for all population groups. Specifically, we have rated the practice as good for effective and requires improvement for well led services.

We found that:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff were trained for their role and knew when they needed to be updated.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • We found some governance and risk monitoring processes that required a review. Specifically, patient specific direction processes, patient group direction authorisation and monitoring and oversight of the cold chain.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to improve childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake rates to be in-line with national targets.
  • Implement a system to consider and understand the duty of candour when reviewing issues, events and occurrences.

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

17/07/2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focused inspection of Richmond Surgery, Richmond Close, Fleet, Hampshire on 17 July 2015.

This inspection was undertaken to check the practice was meeting regulations. For this reason we have only rated the location for the key questions to which these relates.

Our previous inspection in October 2014 found breaches of regulations relating to the safe delivery of services.

We found the practice required improvement for the provision of safe and well-led services, and was rated good for providing effective, caring, responsive services.

We found the practice has made improvements since our last inspection. At our inspection on the 17 July 2015 we found the practice was meeting the regulations that had previously been breached.

Specifically the practice:

  • Operated safe systems of recruitment by ensuring recruitment arrangements included all necessary employment checks for all staff.
  • Ensured the effective operation of systems designed to assess the risk of and to prevent, detect and control the spread of a health care associated infection including legionella.
  • Ensured appropriate measures were in place in relation to the security of the premises.
  • Ensured medicines were only accessible to authorised people.

We have amended the rating for this practice to reflect these changes. The practice is now rated good for the provision of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

15 October 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We have rated the practice as requires improvement overall. Patients were positive about the services they had received from the practice. The practice provided caring and sympathetic, patient-centred care. Policies and procedures were in place for reporting concerns in relation to both adult and child protection issues. The practice monitored the quality of the service people received and was a training practice for student GP registrars. Our key findings were as follows:

  • There were systems in place to ensure effective patient care and patients were satisfied with the services provided.
  • Patients were cared for and treated with dignity and respect and staff ensured their privacy.
  • Staff identified patients who needed additional support, and were pro-active in offering additional help.
  • Patients were given enough time to discuss their concerns or treatments when they attended for appointments and that it was possible to book a double appointment when they needed to discuss more than one concern or complex problems.
  • Significant events and complaints were investigated on an individual basis.
  • The practice had a risk assessment policy but did not have a defined way to record risks and outcomes for the overarching governance of the whole practice.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements. 

Importantly, the provider must:

  • Ensure medicines are kept securely and only accessible to authorised staff.
  • Implement and monitor action plans that are in place following risk assessments being carried out. For example, fire safety and health and safety.

 In addition the provider should:

  • Improve infection control with repair or replacement of the floor covering in one of the treatment rooms and devise a cleaning programme for the material curtains around examination couches.
  • Risk assess security of reception back office for when the practice is closed.
  • Ensure that all relevant recruitment checks are carried out for staff before they start to work at the practice.
  • Review access requirements for disabled patients and make adjustments if required.
  • Provide staff with training for the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice