Archived: Wish Park Surgery

This practice is rated as Requires Improvement overall.

Wish Park Surgery was previously inspected on 22 October 2015 and was rated good in all domains and overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires Improvement

Are services effective? – Requires Improvement

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Requires Improvement

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The provider is rated as requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services. They are rated as good for providing caring and responsive services. The issues identified as requiring improvement overall affected all patients. The population groups are therefore rated as:

Older People – Requires Improvement

People with long-term conditions – Requires Improvement

Families, children and young people – Requires Improvement

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Requires Improvement

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Requires Improvement

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Requires Improvement

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wish Park Surgery on 27 March 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

At this inspection we found:

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• The practice had systems to manage risk, including risk assessments, so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. However, some systems and processes to address risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients and staff were kept safe. This included the arrangements for processing and storing incoming post from other services, infection prevention and control, completion of staff training, and the security and tracking of blank prescription paper.
• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting significant events, although we found the recording processes could be improved and learning was not always shared effectively with staff.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it. The practice ensured patients had good access to care by offering extended hours surgeries, and telephone consultations, as well as offering appointment booking on the practice website.
• 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 areas where the provider must make improvements are:

• Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

• Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

• Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out the duties.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Strengthen the guidance provided for reception staff to include identification of symptoms for potentially seriously ill patients, such as sepsis.

• Review and improve the process to record and action safety alerts.

• Consider ways to increase the visibility of information for patients that are carers.

• Review and improve the system for recording verbal complaints.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice