We carried out a review of the data available to us about Park Surgery 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 Park Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice
Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence table for further information.
This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating August 2016 – Good)
The key questions at this inspection are rated as:
Are services safe? – Requires improvement
Are services effective? – Good
Are services caring? – Good
Are services responsive? – Good
Are services well-led? - Good
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Park Surgery on 25 May 2018 as part of our inspection programme.
At this inspection we found:
However,
The areas where the provider must make improvements are: -
The areas where the provider should make improvements are: -
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Park Surgery on 23 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.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.
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.
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, with urgent appointments available the same day.
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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:
Keep higher than average exception reporting rates for mental health indicators in the quality and outcomes framework under review and ensure action is taken to reduce rates where clinically appropriate.
Set up a patient participation group so that patients and carers can share their views and experiences with the practice and influence the development and improvement of the services the practice provides.
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We also spoke with the health visitor who was attached to the practice. She told us the surgery was very good at communicating with her. We spoke with the chair of the patient support group who described the groups fundraising efforts.
We spoke with staff that included; the practice manager, deputy manager, head receptionist, nurse practitioner and two GPs. We reviewed patient records and the practice's policies and procedures.
Patient's spoken with told us they were very happy with the care at the surgery. One patient told us that 'They are absolutely brilliant there'. Another patient told us 'They are top notch'. None of the patients had made a complaint but told us they felt it would be dealt with if they did have to complain. They said it was not difficult usually to get an appointment with the doctor. We were told that sometimes there was a wait of 5- 10 minutes but they also told us they did not mind that.
We saw that patients were treated with respect and had treatment options discussed with them, and that there were effective infection control measures in place to prevent the spread of infection.
We looked at the processes that the practice had in place to ensure that patients who used the service were protected from abuse. These processes ensured staff had an understanding of adult and child abuse and what to do if it was suspected.
We looked at the systems and processes the practice had in place to review the quality of the service provided. These processes ensured information provided was used to improve the service provided.
We saw that there were effective processes in place to ensure complaints were dealt with appropriately.