Archived: The Brownhill Surgery

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a focused inspection of The Brownhill Surgery on 8 November 2016 to assess whether the practice had made the improvements required in providing safe care and services.

We had previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Brownhill Surgery on 10 May 2016 when we rated the practice as good overall. The practice was rated as requires improvement for providing safe care. This was because a risk assessment for the control and prevention of Legionella had not been completed, appropriate recruitment checks for staff were not consistently performed and blank prescriptions were not kept securely.

We asked the provider to send a report of the improvements they would make to comply with the regulations they were not meeting at that time. The practice is now able to demonstrate that they are meeting the regulations. The practice is now rated as good for providing safe care and the overall rating remains as good.

This report should be read in conjunction with the full inspection report dated 27 June 2016.

Our key finding across the area we inspected was as follows:

• Recruitment checks for staff had been appropriately completed and recorded.
• The security systems for clinical areas and blank prescription stationary were effective.
• The practice had an assessment to determine the risk from infection from Legionella and had taken action to ensure effective and safe water systems.

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 The Brownhill Surgery on 10 May 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 with the exception of those relating to recruitment checks, legionella and blank prescriptions.

• 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.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

• Ensure that blank prescriptions held in clinical areas are kept securely at all times.

• Ensure that a formal risk assessment for Legionella is conducted and that any risks identified are appropriately managed.

• Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary employment checks for all staff.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Ensure the practice website fully reflects the services available to patients. For example, with regard to appointment availability.

• Consider the current operation of the patient participation group to encourage greater patient participation.

• Review the current systems and processes relating to the Quality Outcomes Framework to ensure patient outcomes are optimal.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice