The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Urgent care service or mobile doctor

Exmouth Community Hospital

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Claremont Grove, Exmouth, Devon, EX8 2JF (01395) 279684

Provided and run by:
Claremont Medical Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Exmouth Community Hospital 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 Exmouth Community Hospital, you can give feedback on this service.

11 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Exmouth Community Hospital on 11 February 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

20 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Exmouth Minor Injury Unit (MIU), located within Exmouth Community Hospital on 20 March 2017. Overall the service is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • During 2016 the local health economy was under immense pressure. Demand at local Accident and Emergency services in the region was high. However, the Exmouth Community Minor Injuries Unit (MIU) was at risk of closure due to budgetary cuts and reorganisation in the region.Claremont Medical practice engaged with the local Clinical Commissioning Group to takeover the MIU with the aim of driving further improvements for the community of Exmouth addressing the additional demands on local services.

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The MIU had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Patients are protected by a strong comprehensive safety system, and a focus on

openness, transparency and learning when things go wrong. Staff routinely carried out extensive follow up of any safeguarding referrals made, safeguarding the individual and negating any potential risk of information not being shared appropriately across all agencies involved.

  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Feedback we received from patients showed that they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Patients individual needs were central to the planning and delivery of tailored services. We saw examples of this. For example, staff were receiving additional training to provide an advanced level care for patients with bone fractures to be treated at the MIU.
  • The centre 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 unit proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the MIU complied with these requirements.

There was one area where the provider should

Display notices in the waiting room that advised patients that chaperones were available if required.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice