This practice is rated as good overall. (Previous rating September 2018 – requires improvement)
The key questions are rated as:
Are services safe? – Good
Are services effective? – Good
Are services caring? – Good
Are services responsive? – Requires improvement
Are services well-led? - Good
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Wells Park Practice on 30 October 2019. The practice was previously inspected on 11 September 2018 where they were rated as requires improvement for providing Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well led services and requires improvement overall. The practice was rated good for providing caring services. As a result of the findings on the day of the September 2018 inspection, the practice was issued with two requirement notices for breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance). The full comprehensive report of the 11 September 2018 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wells Park Practice on our website.
This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection on 30 October 2019. We carried out this inspection to check if the practice had made and sustained improvements identified at previous inspections. This report includes our findings in relation to the actions we told the practice they should take to improve.
At this inspection we inspected all six population groups. We rated all population groups as requires improvement overall.
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.
At this inspection we found:
- The practice had clear systems and processes to keep patients safe.
- At our last inspection not all risks to patient safety were managed well. At this inspection we found arrangements for identifying, monitoring and managing risks to patient safety had improved.
- At the time of inspection, the practice did not have appropriate medicines for the safe management of medical emergencies. We found one emergency medicine used for treating seizures was not in stock. During our inspection, the provider obtained this emergency medicine.
- The practice still scored below the national average in the National GP Patient Survey in relation to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone. The practice had acted effectively on issues with telephone access and delays after appointment time. Feedback from patients showed evidence of a little improvement.
- Practice leaders had established policies, procedures and activities, and had assured themselves that they were operating as intended.
- Some performance data was below local and national averages. Uptake rates in 2018/2019 for the vaccines given were below the World Health Organisation (WHO) target of 95% in the four areas where childhood immunisations are measured.
- The practice’s systems for managing staff recruitment and training had improved.
- We found evidence of quality improvement measures including clinical audits and reviews. There was evidence of action taken to change practice.
- Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
- We received 29 patient comment cards and most were positive about the practice although 5 patients said they had experienced problems accessing appointments. Patients consistently described the staff as kind and helpful.
We rated Effective as good except Families, Children and Young People which we rated as requires improvement because of the low childhood immunisation rates and failure to take adequate action to improve them.
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
- Continue to implement a programme to improve uptake of childhood immunisations and national cancer screening programmes.
- Continue to monitor patient satisfaction with telephone access, and take further action if necessary.
- Continue to ensure policies and procedures are followed; for example the emergency medicines protocol.
Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice