• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Wivenhoe Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Spring Lodge, 71 The Avenue, Wivenhoe, Colchester, Essex, CO7 9PP (01206) 824447

Provided and run by:
Wivenhoe Surgery

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

02/06/2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wivenhoe Surgery on 02 June 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing, safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for the older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

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

  • Staff understood how to report significant events and to raise concerns. We found that action had been taken in response to safety alerts. Actions were also taken following investigations into significant events, and these were reviewed to evaluate their impact.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well administered, with evidence of action planning and learning when needed addressed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and the majority said they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The majority of patients said they found it relatively easy to make an appointment with a GP and that there was continuity of care. We were told urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • The practice had appropriate facilities and was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us they felt supported by management.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The practice sought feedback from patients through a patient participation group and a patient survey in relation to the services provided.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should :

  • Ensure that staff members who undertake chaperoning have received suitable training and are guided by a clear chaperone policy and procedures in order to minimise risk to both patients and staff during examinations.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

4 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Wivenhoe surgery provides primary medical and minor injury services to approximately 8300 patients living in the Wivenhoe and Arlesford areas of Essex. Five GP partners are supported by a nursing team and administrative staff. The practice also provides training for medical students.

We found that the practice was caring. Patients’ diverse needs were considered and action taken to meet them. Vulnerable patients, such as those with mental health needs and children, were protected from abuse because the practice had effective arrangements in place that reflected best practice.

We found that the services offered to older people and their carers were safe, caring and effective.

Care and treatment was provided to patients in line with nationally recognised clinical guidelines, particularly in relation to long term medical conditions, health screening, vaccination and end of life care. However, clinical effectiveness was not discussed, managed or monitored systematically.

The practice had arrangements in place to inform people of the services available and provided convenient appointment times.

The arrangements in place to ensure that staff were appropriately supported to fulfil their roles were not fully effective.

The practice’s systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service and thus drive improvement were inadequate. This included a lack of arrangements to systematically consider the views of patients and staff.

4 June 2014

During an inspection