We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hoyland Medical Practice 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 Hoyland Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced assessment of Hoyland Medical Practice on 30 November 2023. The assessment focused on the responsive key question.
Following our previous inspection in July 2023 the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Hoyland Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
The practice continues to be rated as good overall and for providing safe, effective, caring and well led services as this was the rating given at the last comprehensive inspection. However, as a result of the findings of this focused assessment we have now rated the responsive key question as requires improvement.
Safe - Good
Effective - Good
Caring - Good
Responsive – Requires improvement.
Well-led - Good
Why we carried out this assessment.
We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers. We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.
How we carried out the assessment
This assessment was carried out remotely and did not include a site visit.
This included:
Our findings
We based our judgement of the responsive key question on a combination of:
We found that:
Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:
Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.
Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA
Chief Inspector of Health Care
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hoyland Medical Practice on 18 and 19 July 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.
Safe - Good
Effective - Good
Caring - Good
Responsive - Good
Well-led - Good
Following our previous inspection on 16 March 2016, the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions. We also previously undertook a remote regulatory assessment in May 2021 following receipt of information of concern. We focused our assessment on the well-led key lines of enquiry. This was an unrated assessment but we found the practice was in breach of Regulation 17: Good governance.
The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Hoyland Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Why we carried out this inspection
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:
Our findings
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
We have rated this practice as Good overall
We found that:
Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:
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 report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and reducing the burden placed on practices by minimising the time inspection teams spend on site.
This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.
The practice was last inspected in February 2016 when it was rated as good overall and for all domains and population groups.
Background
We undertook a remote regulatory assessment on 6 May 2021 following receipt of information of concern. We focused our assessment on the well-led key lines of enquiry.
During the assessment we spoke with one GP, two practice managers and the administration manager and reviewed information that we had asked the provider to send to us. We also had 15 responses to a questionnaire sent to all staff.
Our findings
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
We found that:
We found one breach of regulations. The provider must:
The provider should:
Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hoyland Medical Practice on 22 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
We saw two areas of outstanding practice.
The nurse team had developed their own fail safe call and recall system for cytology screening. This was used to actively encourage all female patients requiring screening to attend and to ensure that every cytology result was followed up and recalled when necessary. Patients who had not attended for recent screening or had failed to attend follow up of abnormal results were flagged on the system. All staff knew to alert the nurses who would speak with them and offer screening straight away or an appointment if that is what the patient wanted. This call and recall system was checked on a monthly basis and there was no upper limit to the attempts made verbally or by letter to encourage cytology screening. This system was also used as an extra safety net to ensure all abnormal results had been actioned accordingly and patients had attended colposcopy where required. Annual audits were carried out and all abnormal results had been followed up accordingly.
The practice employed their own podiatrist to care for patients who required assessment, advice or treatment but did not meet requirements for NHS care.
However, there was one area of practice where the provider should make improvements:
A poster advising patients how to complain was displayed in the waiting room but it was not easy to see and did not contain details of any outside agencies, such as the ombudsman.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We found processes were in place to safeguard patients from the risks of abuse.
We conducted a tour of the premises and found it was clean and tidy. There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
We found staff were adequately supported because they received regular training sessions and an annual appraisal.
We found there were effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients receive.