All inspections: Patford House Surgery Partnership

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Patford House Surgery Partnership in May 2021. The overall rating for the practice was Inadequate, specifically Inadequate for the provision of responsive and well-led services and Requires Improvement for the provision of safe, effective and caring services. We used our enforcement powers to take action against the breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 including issuing two warning notices. We placed the practice in special measures to enable the practice to improve.

We undertook a further inspection in November 2021. This inspection was undertaken to determine whether the breaches of regulation had been addressed following the inspection in May 2021 and did not provide a new rating. Whilst improvements had been made in relation to the high-risk concerns highlighted at the last inspection, there were several areas which constituted new and continued breaches of regulations.

At this inspection in March 2022, we found that significant improvements had been taken to improve the provision of care and treatment. Following the March 2022 inspection, we have provided a new overall rating of Good and the key questions have been rated as:

Safe - Good
Effective - Good
Caring - Good
Responsive – Requires improvement
Well-led - Good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Patford House Surgery Partnership on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection of all key questions, to follow up on breaches of regulations and to apply an updated rating for the practice.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

Conducting staff interviews
Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
Requesting evidence from the provider including the action plan following the last inspection
Site visits to all three sites
Discussions with practice staff, local care homes who access GP services from the practice and the patient participation group

Our findings

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

We found that:

It was evident the practice had gone through a period of transition. This included merging practices in 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing concerns from past CQC inspections and significant staff changes within all the teams in the practice.

The practice had, with the support of the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and additional external resources, made significant improvements to provide care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.

These systems were newly implemented and required further embedding to ensure the practice would be able to sustain and make further improvements to ensure they were effective.

The practice had been challenged with some staff changes and difficulties in recruiting clinical members of staff, however, they used locums who provided sessions on a regular basis. The practice had an active recruitment drive in place and had recently employed new members of staff to join the different teams within the practice.

We reviewed patient consultation records and found examples of appropriate clinical interventions, monitoring, prescribing and coding, ensuring accurate information was available for any health professional that required it.

Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.

Personal development and learning was actively promoted and a wide range of learning opportunities were provided for staff of all grades and disciplines.

Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.

The practice ensured learning from complaints was shared effectively with staff and demonstrated that all complaints had been acted in line with practice policy and national guidance around response timescales.

The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, patient feedback and satisfaction was low and highlighted further adjustments needed to be made in response to accessing services.

The practice had an effective governance system in place, was well organised and actively sought to learn from previous inspections, performance data, complaints, incidents and feedback.

The practice had engaged with the findings of our last report, had worked with the local CCG and other external teams to identify the recovery plan, make the changes, monitor and ensure those improvements were sustainable. Relationships had been made with the external team to strengthen the leadership, and feedback from staff was positive about the changes and future. However, where improvements had been made the practice needed to ensure they were fully embedded, monitored and sustained.

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

Continue to work with the CCG and other external stakeholders to improve communication and teamwork across the local health economy.
Review the practice website and include information and contact details about local and national support services.
Continue to review and improve patient access to services.
Continue to embed, further improve and sustain the newly implemented systems and processes to provide safe, effective and responsive care.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the improvements that have been made to the quality of care provided by this service.

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

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Patford House Surgery Partnership between 10th and 24th November 2021 to follow up on warning notices issued to the provider following our inspection in May 2021 in regards to breaches of Regulation 16; receiving and acting on complaints, and Regulation 17; good governance. .

This inspection was not rated therefore, ratings following our last inspection in May 2021 remain the same;

Safe - Requires Improvement

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring – Requires Improvement

Responsive – Inadequate

Well-led – Inadequate

Following our previous inspection on 6th and 7th May 2021, the practice was rated Inadequate overall and for the key questions Safe and Well Led. For the key questions effective, caring and responsive the practice was rated as requires improvement.

We issued the provider with requirement notices for breaches of Regulations 12 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, related to safe care and treatment and Staffing.

We also issued the provider with warning notices for breaches of Regulations 16 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, related to receiving and acting on complaints and good governance.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Patford House Surgery Group on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused follow-up inspection to monitor the providers progress against their action plan to confirm that the practice had met the legal requirements in relation to the warning notices served after our previous inspection in May 2021.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
Requesting evidence from the provider
A short site visit
Obtaining feedback from other stakeholders

Our findings

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 not rated this inspection.

We found that:

The practice ensured learning from complaints was shared effectively with staff. However, the practice was unable to demonstrate that all complaints had been acted in line with practice policy and national guidance around response timescales.
Systems and processes were established to ensure patients affected by Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) alerts, were routinely reviewed.
The practice had effective governance procedures for patients prescribed high risk medicines to ensure they received appropriate monitoring.
Systems and processes for infection prevention and control (IPC) were followed and effective.
Systems for ensuring emergency medicines were checked to ensure they were safe to use were effective and embedded in practice.
Systems and process relating to the management of practice tasks system were followed and effective.
There were adequate systems to ensure oversight of significant events and that learning was identified actioned and shared effectively
There was oversight of processes to mitigate risk relating to fire procedures.
Oversight of Legionella was embedded in practice.
Systems to identify and mitigate risk relating to Covid-19 were embedded.
The practice had effective oversight of prescription security.
Appropriate training systems and oversight of the system was in place. However, staff had not been trained in the safe use of the evacuation chair.
There was a significant backlog regarding the clinical coding of patient records.
The practice did not have effective systems to monitor patient access and ensure care and treatment was accessible.
The practice had not received a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for all staff.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

Ensure there is an effective system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints by patients and other persons in relation to the carrying on of the regulated activity.
Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

This inspection has not been rated; therefore, the previous ratings will apply and as such the practice remains in special measures until we are able to undertake a full rated inspection.

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

We carried out an unannounced inspection at Patford House Surgery Partnership on 5 May and 10 May 2021 and conducted remote searches on the practice’s clinical system on 6 and 7 May 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Inadequate.

Set out the ratings for each key question

Safe - Requires Improvement

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring – Requires Improvement

Responsive - Inadequate

Well-led - Inadequate

Following our previous focused inspection in December 2020 we served warning notices on the provider for breaches of Regulation 17 Good governance of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 because the quality of care they are responsible for fell below expected standards and legal requirements. This previous inspection was unrated.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Patford House Surgery Partnership on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection to confirm that the practice had met the legal requirements in relation to the warning notices served after our previous inspection in December 2020 and to follow up on areas of concern identified to CQC.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system
Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
Requesting evidence from the provider

Our findings

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 Inadequate overall and Inadequate for all population groups.

At this inspection we found that not enough improvements had been made to address the breaches identified in the warning notice issued for Regulation 17 Good governance. We served further warning notice to the provider for breaches of Regulation 17 Good governance and Regulation 16 Receiving and acting on complaints.

We found that:

Processes to identify and mitigate risk relating to fire, Legionella and Covid-19 were not effective.
The practice could not be assured that all medical equipment was safe and appropriate for use.
Processes introduced to manage practice tasks were not adequate.
The monitoring of patients prescribed high risk medicines and those affected by medicines alerts, did not ensure patient safety.
The processes to ensure significant events were raised, investigated appropriately and that learning was identified and shared in a timely way with relevant staff, were not always effective.
The practice described how the pandemic had impacted on the processing of significant events as they prioritised other patient needs during this unprecedented time.
Staff had access to training and development. However, the processes to ensure staff remained qualified and competent for their role required improvement.
Since the inspection the provider has submitted evidence of up to date registration checks for all clinical staff.
The practice could not provide assurances that all patients received effective care and treatment.
The practice collated patient feedback from a variety of sources, However, improvements relating to concerns raised by patients were limited.
Patient access was not monitored effectively to ensure services remained accessible to all patients as required.
The practice’s complaints process was not adequate.
Overall governance arrangements were ineffective.
Improvements in practice culture had not been consistent to ensure all staff felt comfortable to raise concerns.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
Ensure that any complaint received is investigated and any proportionate action is taken in response to any failure identified by the complaint or investigation.
Ensure there is an effective system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints by patients and other persons in relation to the carrying on of the regulated activity.
Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out the duties.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

Review oversight of monitoring of staff vaccinations to ensure practice policy is in line with national recommendations.
Identify and implement actions to address areas of concern following patient feedback.
Review arrangements for issuing staff rotas.
Clinicians revalidation and appraisals should be reinstated within the timescales set out by NHS England in March 2020.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

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

In light of the current Covid-19, CQC has looked at ways to fulfil our regulatory obligations, respond to risk and reduce the burden placed on practices by minimising the time inspection teams spend on site.

In order to seek assurances around potential risks to patients, we are currently piloting a process of remote working as far as practicable. This practice consented to take part in this pilot and the evidence in the report was gathered without entering the practice premises.

We carried out the remote elements of inspection through the GP focused inspection pilot (GPFIP) on four dates between 18 December 2020 and 15 January 2021. This was in response to intelligence we received from members of the public and staff which suggested an increase in risk to patients at the practice. This information included, being unable to access medical care via the telephone, a poor practice culture and concerns that processes that kept patients safe were not being adhered to.

We have not rated the practice during this inspection as we did not visit the provider.

We found that:

The practice did not have appropriate systems in place for the safe management of medicines.

Searches undertaken identified high-risk medicines being prescribed where patients had not been monitored in line with guidance.

Processes were not in place to ensure that medicine alerts were consistently and appropriately acted on.

Processes for repeat prescribing of medicines were not always effective. We saw prescriptions had been issued where no checks had been made to ensure monitoring had taken place.

Processes to manage risk were not always effective. For example, there was no consistent oversight to ensure priority tasks were actioned appropriately or for identifying those remaining tasks which still need actioning.

Coding on the clinical system was not consistent. One outcome of this had been that for some patients; a diagnosis of diabetes not being coded they had not been appropriately referred for targeted intervention and regular screening which placed them at increased risk of potential harm.

Staff feedback told us processes to improve practice culture were ineffective; staff feedback received included that they felt unsupported and not listened to, and could not raise concerns without fear of retribution. Five members of staff who had left the practice told us that the poor practice culture had led to their resignations.

Processes and systems to respond and improve patient access via the telephone were ineffective.

The provider had not ensured that CQC were informed of changes within the partnership, in line with the conditions of their registration.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

Ensure that care and treatment is provided in a safe way.
Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

Take action to review staffing levels and capacity

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

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating in April 2018 – Good)

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

When we visited Patford House Surgery Partnership on 4 April 2018, to carry out a comprehensive inspection, we found the practice was not meeting the requirements of the regulation relating to safe care and treatment. The practice was not doing all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate risks. Specifically, we found:

The practice system for dealing with alerts did not include a feedback system to the management team so they could confirm that all appropriate action had been taken.
Not all blank prescription forms were being adequately tracked.

We also said the practice should:

Review what training they define as being essential for staff and their system for recording the training completed by staff.
Review the recently introduced system for ensuring that all staff are informed of learning from complaints and significant events, to ensure the new system is effective and embedded.
Review the practice systems for carrying out the routine Legionella checks recommended in their Legionella risk assessment.
Review the practice exception reporting rates for the prevention of cardiovascular disease within their quality outcomes framework and take appropriate action to reduce this rate.

Overall the practice was rated as Good. They were rated as outstanding for providing caring services, good for providing effective, responsive and well-led services, and requires improvement for providing safe services. The full report of the April 2018, inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Patford House Surgery Partnership on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This report covers the announced follow up focused inspection we carried out at Patford House Surgery Partnership on 01 November 2018, to review the actions taken by the practice to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was meeting legal requirements.

At this inspection we found the practice had addressed the regulatory breaches we identified on our last inspection. Specifically:

The medicines alert system included a feedback process to the management team so they could confirm that all appropriate action had been taken.
Blank prescription forms were now being adequately tracked.

The practice had also made improvements in all the areas we suggested they should address in our previous inspection. For example:

The practice had reviewed their system for ensuring staff were clear about what training the practice considered essential and for recording the training undertaken by staff. We saw they had introduced an new IT system which helped them keep track of what training was due. This system showed that, apart from a few exceptions due to holidays and newly started staff, all training considered as essential by the practice had been completed.
The practice had conducted an audit of the system they had introduced shortly before our previous inspection in April 2018, for ensuring that all staff are informed of learning from complaints and significant events. We reviewed the evidence in this audit and found it should the new system appeared to be working effectively.
The practice had reviewed their exception reporting rates for the two-year period from April 2016 to March 2018, which were above the national average. (Exception reporting is the removal of patients from performance calculations where, for example, the patients are unable to attend a review meeting or certain medicines cannot be prescribed because of side effects.) They had investigated the reasons for this and found that some staff were incorrectly coding items in the IT system. Staff were given refresher training to ensure they knew how to enter data correctly. The practice recognised they had not done enough to monitor their exception rates and had introduced a new policy to monitor this data at regular intervals.

Patford House Surgery Partnership is now rated as good overall and in all key questions, except caring which is rated as outstanding.

Are services safe? – Good
Are services effective? – Good
Are services caring? – Outstanding
Are services responsive? – Good
Are services well-led? - Good

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires improvement
Are services effective? – Good
Are services caring? – Outstanding
Are services responsive? – Good
Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good
People with long-term conditions – Good
Families, children and young people – Good
Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good
People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Patford House Surgery Partnership on 4 April 2018 as part of our inspection programme. We previously inspected the practice in April 2016 when they were rated as good overall and for all the five key questions. The full comprehensive report of our previous inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Patford House Surgery Partnership on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This report covers the finding of our inspection on 4 April 2018. At this inspection we found:

The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen, except in relation to Safety alerts and Legionella (a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings). When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
Systems were in place to deal with safety alerts, medicines alerts or recalls. Alerts were sent to all appropriate staff and the examples we looked at had been appropriately actioned. However, staff were not required to feedback on the action they had taken to the management team so the practice could confirm that all appropriate action had been taken.
The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
Patients’ feedback was consistently positive. In many areas the practice feedback scores were significantly above the national average.
There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. However, we found some weaknesses in their systems for checking that all learning points had been shared with all appropriate staff and that all actions required in response to safety alerts had been completed.
The practice had a branch surgery in Sutton Benger which was able to dispense medicines to patients who live more than one mile (1.6km) from their nearest pharmacy premises.
The practice was a demonstrator site for integrated care in the community. As part of this they worked in partnership with the other two local practices and other local services to improve community services. Examples of this work were; a multi-agency meeting to discuss the promotion of healthy alternatives to loneliness in the locality, and regular meetings to discuss the care given to patients in care homes that were attended by representatives of the local community care team, care homes and GP practices, as well as a consultant geriatrician.

We saw one example of outstanding practice.

The practice worked proactively to support carers. This work was led by a nurse who offered dedicated carer’s telephone appointments on Fridays to address any particularly issues before the weekend. They held carers clinics every three months at the surgery and had held other events for carers in partnership with two other local practices, including a Christmas Party. The practice had identified 224 patients as carers (2.5% of the practice list).

The areas where the provider MUST make improvements are:

The practice must do all that is reasonably practical to mitigate risks.

The areas where the provider SHOULD make improvements are:

Review what training they define as being essential for staff and their system for recording the training completed by staff.
Review the recently introduced system for ensuring that all staff are informed of learning from complaints and significant events, to ensure the new system is effective and embedded.
Review the practice systems for carrying out the routine Legionella checks recommended in their Legionella risk assessment.
Review the practice exception reporting rates for the prevention of cardiovascular disease within their quality outcomes framework and take appropriate action to reduce this rate.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Patford House Surgery Partnership on 14 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 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.
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.
When there were unintended or unexpected safety incidents, patients received reasonable support, truthful information, a verbal and written apology and were told about any actions to improve processes to prevent the same thing happening again.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

The provider should review its vaccination programme, to help patients realise the benefits of childhood immunisation.
The provider should review its access arrangements, so that patients have a greater likelihood of seeing the GP of their choice.
The provider should seek support to recruit members to its patient participation group, to better reflect the patient population it serves.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We saw the practice had established a Patient Participation Group (PPG) to encourage patients to share their views and highlight areas for improvement. We met with one of the participants during our visit and spoke to two others over the telephone. They were able to confirm the PPG had produced a report which included an action plan showing how improvements were going to be made. For example, how the surgery was going to change the phone system to improve access to the appointments system. This meant patients had their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered.

We were told the surgery had a network of other providers where people were regularly referred for specialist advice such as mental health services. The GP we spoke with described how all of the doctors in the practice had developed areas of professional interest such as asthma or women's health. This enabled them to provide a higher level of advice to patients before the need to refer anyone onto specialists in these areas. Two of the patients we spoke with had experienced this advice and thought it was a positive benefit.

There was an identified lead GP with a clear role to oversee both safeguarding adults and children within the surgery. This role included reviewing the procedures used in the practice and ensuring staff were up to date and well informed about protecting patients from potential abuse. We saw evidence of the advanced training the GP had undertaken last year to underpin this role.

Records showed there was a comprehensive induction programme which new staff members completed. This included identifying specific raining required by the individual. One member of staff we spoke with who was recruited this year, told us their induction had covered everything they needed to know about their role. This meant the provider had equipped staff with the skills and experience to meet patient's needs.

The surgery completed an annual complaints report in order to analyse and identify trends in the occurrence of complaints and to review learning. We were shown the record of last year's report by the practice manager and this clearly listed the actions taken and timescales against the complaints.

Patford House Surgery Partnership

All Inspections

29 March 2022 & 30 March 2022

During a routine inspection

17th November 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

5 May 2021 and 10 May 2021

During a routine inspection

23 December 2020, 11 January 2021, 15 January 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

1 November 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

4 April 2018

During a routine inspection

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

14 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

7 January 2014

During a routine inspection