The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Paddock Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Chapel Lane, Thornhill, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF12 0DH (01924) 465343

Provided and run by:
The Paddock Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

17 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Paddock Surgery on 17 January 2020. 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.

8 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Paddock Surgery on 8 September 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:

  • The GP partners offered a small scale acupuncture service for patients with musculoskeletal complaints. An evaluation of this service showed that 74% of respondents said the treatment was very or fairly effective and 52% of patients felt able to reduce their medication as a result of the treatment.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review the arrangements for the storage and checking of emergency equipment and medicines.
  • Consider expanding incident and significant event reporting to include near misses and minor administrative errors.
  • Review how they label clinical waste bags in line with current legislation and guidance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

2 October 2013

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, three staff members, a doctor, who was also the registered manager and the practice manager. These are some of the comments people who use the service told us:

"I'm eternally grateful to the Doctors because they have been there for me."

"It is a good practice."

'The service is generally good.'

'The practice does not always consult about changes to the service.'

We found the practice treated people as individuals and respected their choices and preferences. We saw the practice made information available for people so they could access services as they needed them.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw that assessments and reviews of care had involved the person or their carer. This showed that the person or where appropriate their carer, were involved in how their treatment and care was planned.

All staff had received abuse awareness training and procedures were in place to respond appropriately to any allegation of abuse.

People had their comments and complaints listened to and, where appropriate, action had been taken.