The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Granta Medical Practices

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

London Road, Sawston, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB22 3HU 0300 234 5555

Provided and run by:
Granta Medical Practices

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

14 October 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Granta Medical Practices on 14 October 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We carried out an inspection of this service due to the length of time since the last inspection. Following our review of the information available to us, including information provided by the practice, we focused our inspection on the following key questions, safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

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 Outstanding overall. The population group for older people, people with long term conditions and working age people (including those recently retired and students) as good. The population group for families, children and young people, people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) as outstanding.

We found that:

  • The practice demonstrated outstanding leadership as senior clinicians and all staff worked in a clear and cohesive patient centre approach to providing primary care to their patients.
  • People were protected by a strong comprehensive safety system and a focus on openness, transparency and learnings when things went wrong.
  • The practice worked with patients to deliver high quality, accessible health care, meeting the challenge of extended opening times and providing a team approach utilising clinical skill mix to deliver safe and effective care to patients.
  • There was a truly holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment to all patients who used the services.
  • The practice had identified areas where gaps in provision of services and support networks locally and had taken steps to address them.
  • There was a strong person-centre and open culture in which safety concerns raised by staff and patients was highly valued as being integral to learning and improvement.
  • Patients were supported and treated with dignity and respect and were involved partners in their care.
  • The leadership, governance and culture of the practice promoted the delivery of high-quality person-centre care.

We rated the practice as outstanding for providing responsive services because:

  • People’s individual needs and preferences are central to the delivery of tailored services.
  • There were innovative approaches to providing integrated person-centred pathways of care that involved other service providers, particularly for people with multiple and complex needs.
  • There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs and preferences of different groups of people and to delivering care in a way that meets these needs, which is accessible and promotes equality. This includes people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act, people who may be approaching the end of their life, and people who are in vulnerable circumstances or who have complex needs.
  • People who use the service and others were involved in regular reviews of how the service managed and responded to complaints. The service could demonstrate where improvements had been made because of learning from reviews and that learning was shared with other services.
  • Investigations were comprehensive, and the service used innovative ways of looking into concerns, including using external people and professionals to make sure there is an independent and objective approach.

We rated the practice as outstanding for providing well-led services because:

  • The clinically driven leadership, governance and culture was used to drive and improve the delivery of high-quality person-centred care. There was inclusive and effective leadership at all levels. Leaders at all levels demonstrated the high levels of experience, capacity and capability needed to deliver excellent and sustainable care.
  • The practice ensured strong and consistent clinical leadership and listened to and gave staff protected time to ensure they were able to proactively manage patients, systems and processes.
  • There was clear joint working between the clinical team members with GPs supporting and leading education and development with the wider team.
  • The leaders had a deep understanding of issues, challenges and priorities in their practice and in the wider health system.
  • There was a systematic and integrated approach to monitoring, reviewing and providing evidence of progress against strategy and plans.
  • Staff were proud of the practice as a place to work and spoke highly of the culture. There was a strong team-working and support across all areas and a common focus on improving the quality and sustainability of care and patient’s experience.
  • There was a demonstrated commitment to best practice performance and risk management of systems and processes.
  • The practice processes and systems to ensure patients and staff were kept safe from harm demonstrated good practice.
  • There was demonstrated commitment at all levels to sharing data and information safely to drive and support decision making including system wide working and improvement.

The population group for older people, working age people (including those recently retired and students) are rated as good. The population group for families, children and young people, people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) as outstanding.

We also rated the practice as good for providing safe and effective and caring services because:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Monitor the newly revised system and process to ensure all emergency equipment is safe to use.
  • Monitor and embed the system and process to ensure all near misses, reviews and actions taken are identified and fully documented to identify trends to mitigate further occurrences.
  • Monitor and ensure risks assessments are recorded to provide safe delivery of medicines.

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

10 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We visited Sawston Medical Practice on the 10 June 2015 and carried out a comprehensive inspection. The overall rating for this practice is outstanding. We found that the practice provided a safe and caring service. They were outstanding in the relation to their effectiveness, responsiveness and in being well led.

We examined patient care across the following population groups: older people; those with long term medical conditions; families, babies, children and young people; working age people and those recently retired; people in vulnerable circumstances who may have poor access to primary care; and people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. We found that care was tailored appropriately to the individual circumstances and needs of the patients in these groups. The population groups were rated good, with older people and those with long term conditions rated as outstanding.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Feedback from all the patients we spoke with and received comments cards from was positive. Patients told us they were treated with dignity, care and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and were highly complimentary about the care that they received from the practice.
  • The practice addressed patients’ needs and worked in partnership with other health and social care services to deliver individualised care to patients.
  • The needs of the practice population were understood and services were offered to meet these. The practice offered a rapid access clinic for patients to be seen urgently. This included a visiting GP, who was available from 8:00am to 6:00pm to undertake home visits. Patients were satisfied with the appointment system.
  • Feedback from representatives from care homes where patients were registered with the practice was very positive in all areas.
  • There was a clear leadership structure with delegated authority for decision making. All the staff we spoke with told us they felt very well supported by their peers and by the managers.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients. There were numerous examples of how the practice had positively responded to these. These included a weekly staff newsletter, redesigning the practice website and talking to community groups about the most effective way of them accessing health services.
  • The practice operated from a purpose built building and had a dedicated emergency treatment room and a separate room for treating patients with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). MRSA is a type of bacteria that's resistant to a number of widely used antibiotics.

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

  • Improve the arrangements for the security of blank prescription forms.

We saw a number of areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice offered a rapid access clinic for patients to be seen urgently. This included a visiting GP, who was available from 8:00am to 6:00pm to undertake home visits. The practice published monthly performance data for appointments, consultations and waiting times. The practice had low average waiting times, for March 2015 this was 4.7 minutes.
  • Patients with long term conditions were recalled at least annually for an appointment to have all relevant tests undertaken. The results were then reviewed by one GP who advised on the most appropriate action for the patient. If patients did not require further intervention, this was not provided. This reduced the need for patients to attend numerous appointments, promoted self care and ensured their care and treatment needs were managed holistically.
  • The practice delivered medicines to some villages, where there were central collection points. Staff also delivered medicines to some patients who were housebound and were extending this to patients who had difficulty in collecting their medicines. Staff who delivered these medicines had undertaken a Disclosure and Barring Service check to help ensure their suitability for undertaking this role.
  • The practice ran a walking group every Tuesday which was available for patients to help them maintain their health and well-being.
  • The practice provided an ear micro suction service for its own patients and also non-registered patients. This was requested by the Clinical Commissioning Group due to a lack of provision in the area. This reduced the need for patients to travel to hospital clinics.
  • Health passports, which had been developed by the practice, were given to all patients with long term conditions and to all new patients who registered at the practice. This enabled them to keep a record of their health status, to set their own health goals and monitor their progress towards their goals. Patients could also seek support from the practice to do this. The passport had simple text and illustrations which helped make it simple to follow.
  • Staff received a weekly newsletter which updated them with important information and included the positive achievements of staff.
  • A staff survey was undertaken annually and the practice's response included both improvements to work processes, including staff training and also social events.
  • A breastfeeding room and a separate baby changing room were available for patients to use.
  • The practice worked closely with The John Huntingdon Trust. This is a charity that works in conjunction with the Citizens Advice Bureau. The practice made referrals to The John Huntingdon Trust so that patients, particularly those who were vulnerable, were able to receive support for issues that were not medical in nature.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice