The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Tennyson House Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

20 Merlin Place, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 4HW (01245) 260459

Provided and run by:
Chelmer Medical Partnership

All Inspections

9 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Tennyson House Surgery on 9 August 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.

19/04/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Tennyson House Surgery on 19 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.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • The practice maintained appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene.

  • 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.
  • Staff used every opportunity to identify potential risks to patients’ health; they gave advice or referred to other services to support them to live healthier lives.
  • 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 sometimes found it difficult to get through on the phone to make an appointment with a named GP.
  • Urgent and same day appointments were available to be made between 8.30am and 9.30am; from 9.30am up to two days in advance appointments were available. Also routine appointments were available up to four weeks in advance.
  • 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Improve the identification of patients who are carers.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice