We carried out a review of the data available to us about Pool 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 Pool Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Pool Medical Centre on 23 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as Good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
The system for reporting and recording significant events ensured that these were fully investigated and patients affected were notified and supported.
Risks to staff and patients were continuously monitored to promote safety, and there were suitable arrangements to deal with emergencies and major incidents.
Prescription stationery was stored securely but printer forms were not tracked after being removed from their boxes.
Current evidence based guidelines were monitored and adhered to in the planning and management of patient care.
The practice held annual staff appraisal meetings to review professional development and identify learning needs. Staff we spoke with during the inspection told us they had access to appropriate training to cover the scope of their work.
Information for patients about the services available and how to complain was easy to understand and accessible.
The practice had a lead staff member for dealing with complaints and we saw that these were properly managed and lessons were learned. The practice took action to improve the quality of care as a result of concerns raised.
Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was comparable to or higher than local and national averages.
There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management, and the practice actively sought feedback from staff and patients to improve its offering.
We saw one area of outstanding practice:
The practice actively engaged with patients and was responsive to the local community. Needs were assessed and action was taken to improve care and encourage healthier lifestyles. For example the practice had worked with its Patient Participation Group (PPG) to organise activities for local over 75s as a means of reducing social isolation. This had resulted in a one third decrease in appointments made by older people, and their number of hospital admissions had also fallen. The PPG had sent a teenage survey to younger patients asking for their views; and the practice had then offered drop-in sessions for teenagers who were not registered with the practice to allow them to attend anonymously for advice. The practice had also run a men’s health evening in a local pub to promote health screening and to educate patients about alcohol intake. As a result of the event the practice identified a small number of patients with previously undiagnosed hypertension who were followed up.
The area where the provider should make improvement is:
Continue to monitor security in the management of prescription stationery.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
Pool Medical Centre provides a range of primary medical services for just over 6,000 patients from a modern purpose built surgery in Pool Road, Studley.
All the patients we spoke with were very complimentary about the service they received at the surgery. The chair of the patient participation group (PPG) believed that the group’s views were listened to and respected. The staff told us they felt valued, supported and motivated.
There were appropriate governance measures in place and we saw evidence of collaborative working between the practice and other health care providers.
The practice participated in a local scheme to help protect people vulnerable to hate crimes. The practice had its own initiative to reduce emergency hospital admissions for people with long term conditions.
We found that some medicines and equipment in the practice’s emergency response bag were out of date even though there was evidence of regular checks of the bag’s contents. This increased the risk that unsafe medicines or equipment could be used to treat patients in an emergency.
We also looked at how services were provided for specific groups within the population. These were, vulnerable older people (over 75), people with long-term conditions, mothers, babies, children and young people, working age population and those recently retired (aged up to 74), people in vulnerable circumstances who may have poor access to primary care, and people experiencing a mental health problem. We found that the practice had adequate arrangements to look after the needs of the patients in these groups.