The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: The New Brewery Lane Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Brewery Lane, Thornhill Lees, Dewsbury, WF12 9DU (01924) 458787

Provided and run by:
The New Brewery Lane Surgery

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

20 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The New Brewery Lane Surgery on 20 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good. The address shown above is for the branch practice which is the address registered with the CQC. The main surgery is located at The Sidings Health Centre, The Sidings, Savile Town, Dewsbury,WF12 9QU.

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. We discussed events that had been dealt with successfully but not recorded as a significant event. We also noted that minor administrative errors were not recorded in an incident log.
  • 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.
  • There was an arrangement in place with local mosques to ensure that death certificates were issued quickly and to provide support to bereaved families.
  • 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. In response to patient feedback the practice had improved access to appointments for both urgent and non-urgent care.
  • 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 practice provided services in line with the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) ‘care closer to home’ policy. For example, phlebotomy, spirometry, 24 hour blood pressure monitoring and electrocardiograms (ECGs).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Improve significant event reporting to include events that are dealt with successfully and minor administrative errors.
  • The practice should review the process to identify and review high risk medicines in collaboration with the pharmacist.
  • Review the availability of clinical waste bins in all consulting and treatment rooms.
  • Improve their systems to ensure they inform the CQC of any changes to the registered details of the service in a timely manner.
  • Review their systems to ensure all GPs can readily access and contribute to shared care plans on the clinical system.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

18 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We focused the majority of our inspection at The New Brewery Lane Surgery but also visited the branch site at Warren Street.

When we visited the Warren Street branch site we saw this was run down and in need of modernisation. However, we were able to review plans for new premises that the provider was currently working on.

We saw steps had been taken to encourage patient feedback as the practice had comments and suggestions boxes in the waiting areas.

The practice had a small patient reference group and were working to increase interest from additional members.

We spoke with eight patients during our inspection who were happy with the service. Comments included:

'Yes, I feel involved in the care. I have diabetes and they always explain everything to me and make sure I understand.'

'The doctors are really kind. They'll always explain everything to you.'

We found the practice had safeguarding polices in place which contained details of external contacts. However, some of the staff members we spoke with were not sure of the safeguarding lead for the practice.

The practice had a recruitment policy in place, however this did not make clear how many references should be obtained prior to a formal offer of employment being issued. We reviewed two staff files and found appropriate checks had not been carried out.