The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Haven Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

100 Beaconsfield Villas, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 6HE (01273) 555999

Provided and run by:
Dr Larissa Tate

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Haven Practice 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 The Haven Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

15 September 2021

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at The Haven Practice on 15 September 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as good. The ratings for each key question inspected are as follows:-

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring – not inspected

Responsive – not inspected

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 9 July 2019, the practice was rated requires improvement overall and for the safe and well led questions. It was rated good for the effective, caring and responsive key questions. All the population groups we re-rated as good. Requirement notices were issued for regulation 12 safe care and treatment, regulation 19, fit and proper persons employed and regulation 17 good governance.

On 15 September 2021 we undertook this focused inspection to follow up on the breaches of regulations identified at our previous inspection in July 2019. We found that the practice had made improvements and the requirement notices had been met.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Haven Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused comprehensive inspection to follow up on:

  • Safe, effective and well-led domains.
  • Areas we said the practice should improve which included the uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, considering the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our findings

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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Staff had the training and skills required for their roles.
  • The practice had improved the uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Review the prescribing of asthma inhalers in order to ensure appropriate use.
  • Keep records of consultation and notes reviews undertaken as part of clinical supervision.
  • Maintain a central record of updated training undertaken by clinical staff.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

9 July 2019

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as requires improvement overall. The practice had previously been inspected in December 2018 where they were rated as requires improvement overall.

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? – Requires Improvement

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Haven Practice on 12 December 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:

  • The practice’s systems, processes and practices did not always help to keep people safe.
  • The system for repeat prescribing did not include appropriate processes for re-authorisation.
  • The system for recording action taken as a result of safety alerts was not comprehensive and did not include all alerts or where action had been taken by the locality pharmacist.
  • Emergency equipment such as oxygen and the defibrillator were not subject to regular checks and staff had not all received basic life support training in line with national guidance.
  • Governance arrangements were not always effective.
  • There was an effective system for reporting and recording significant events. The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.
  • Reception staff had received training and were aware of actions to take if they encountered a deteriorating or acutely unwell patient.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the practice within an acceptable timescale for their needs.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was higher than local and national averages.
  • The practice involved patients, the public, staff and external partners to support high-quality sustainable services.

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 recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.

The area where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to take action to improve the uptake of childhood immunisations.
  • Continue to take action to improve the uptake of cervical screening.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

10/12/2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Requires Improvement overall.

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? – Requires Improvement

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Haven Practice on 12 December 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:

  • There was an effective system for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice’s systems, processes and practices did not always help to keep people safe.
  • Risks to patients, staff and visitors were not always assessed, monitored and managed in an effective manner.
  • Staff did not always have the information they needed to deliver safe care and treatment to patients.
  • There were arrangements for managing medicines in the practice to keep patients safe.
  • The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.
  • Reception staff had not received training and were not aware of actions to take if they encountered a deteriorating or acutely unwell patient.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the practice within an acceptable timescale for their needs.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was higher than local and national averages.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
  • Governance arrangements were not always effective.
  • The practice involved patients, the public, staff and external partners to support high-quality sustainable services.

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.

The area where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Provide awareness training for reception staff on the ‘red flag’ sepsis symptoms that might be reported by patients and how to respond.
  • Consider carrying out an in house patient survey to address some of the results and comments received by patients during our inspection and in the Friends and Family test.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.