28 March 2018
During a routine inspection
This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 07/2017 – Inadequate)
The key questions are rated as:
Are services safe? – Good
Are services effective? – Good
Are services caring? – Good
Are services responsive? – Good
Are services well-led? - Good
As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:
Older People – Good
People with long-term conditions – Good
Families, children and young people – Good
Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good
People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good
We undertook a comprehensive inspection of The Sollershott Surgery on 12 May 2016 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The practice was rated as inadequate for providing safe and well led services and was placed into special measures for a period of six months. We undertook a further announced comprehensive inspection of The Sollershott Surgery on 06 July 2017. This inspection was carried out following the period of special measures to see if improvements had been made and to assess whether the practice could come out of special measures. The practice continued to be rated as inadequate for providing safe and well led services and remained in special measures for a further period of six months. The full comprehensive reports on the May 2016 and July 2017 inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Sollershott Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was undertaken following the period of special measures and was an announced comprehensive inspection on 28 March 2018.
At this inspection we found:
- Practice specific policies and procedures were in place, they were regularly reviewed and accessible to all staff, including locum and temporary staff.
- Patients’ health was now monitored to ensure appropriate blood monitoring had taken place. The provider had implemented a rolling programme of audits of patients who were prescribed high-risk medicines.
- The provider had identified a clinical lead for the practice and established a regular team of self-employed sessional GPs to provide continuity of care. Clinical meetings were now held in the practice.
- The practice had developed an active patient participation group (PPG) who they engaged with to obtain views and concerns of the patient population.
- The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes. Incidents and learning were shared with the provider’s governance team to identify any trends and learning across the organisation.
- The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
- Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
- The most recent published quality and outcomes framework (QOF) data showed the practice were below local and national averages overall and in many areas particularly for the monitoring of patients with long-term conditions and patients experiencing poor mental health (including those with dementia).
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
- Continue to monitor and ensure improvements to national GP patient survey results in all areas.
- Continue to monitor the care and improve outcomes for patients particularly those with diabetes and patients experiencing poor mental health.
- Consider ways to ensure staff engagement and satisfaction with their employment.
I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by this service.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice