We carried out a review of the data available to us about Elbury Moor Medical Centre 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 Elbury Moor Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced follow up inspection at Elbury Moor Medical Centre on 17 and 18 May 2021. The practice had previously been rated Requires Improvement. At the last inspection in October 2019, we identified the following areas for improvement:
We found the practice had made improvements at this inspection.
The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Elbury Moor Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
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:
• 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, and Good for all population groups.
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
We carried out an inspection of this service on 17 October 2019 following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.
This inspection focused on the following key questions: Effective and Well-led.
In view of the assurance received from our review of information, we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions: Safe, Caring and Responsive.
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
We have rated this practice as requires improvement overall and good for all population groups with the exception of families, children and young people and working age people (including those recently retired and students).
We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective and well-led services because:
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
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Turner and Partners on 13 April 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all of the areas we inspected were as follows:
Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded and all staff had access to the template for recording incidents.
Staffing levels were monitored to ensure they matched patients’ needs. In response to a shortage of GPs and lower than average scores in the national patient survey around availability of appointments the practice had put systems in place. Efforts were being made to employ another GP and more nursing staff and to change the way nurses worked to address the problem.
Safe arrangements were in place for staff recruitment that protected patients from risks of harm.
Patients were protected by a comprehensive safety system. There was focus on openness, transparency and learning when things went wrong. Arrangements were in place to ensure that the premises and equipment were hygienically maintained.
Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Risk assessments were included for those patients who had care plans in place. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training had been identified, planned and implemented.
Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their treatment. Observations during our inspection showed that staff were courteous and helpful towards patients.
Information about how to make a complaint was readily available and easy to understand. Staff demonstrated that complaints received were dealt with appropriately.
The practice had purpose built premises and facilities and was well equipped to assess and treat patients.
There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us they felt well supported by senior staff. Management proactively sought feedback from patients which it acted on.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. A patient said: "They're all fabulous. They use your name so you get a personal approach".
The patients we spoke with provided positive feedback about their care. A patient told us: "Absolutely top class. The care I've had over the last few years is great". Patients who received regular medicines told us they were regularly reviewed to check that they still needed them.
Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from harm.
We found that staff had received appropriate training for the roles they carried out. They also had received annual appraisals. This meant that they had been adequately assessed as being competent.
The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system to regularly obtain opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by the practice staff.