The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Newtown Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Health Care Resource Centre, Caldwell Road, Widnes, Cheshire, WA8 7GD (0151) 511 5810

Provided and run by:
Dr Satya Sai Srinivasa Prasad Koya

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

Not applicable

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Newtown Surgery on 26 July 2022.

Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led – Good

Following our previous inspection on 16 September 2021, the practice was rated Good overall and requires improvement for providing well-led services. At this inspection we carried over the ratings from the previous inspection for the Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive domains. This inspection focused on the breaches of regulation in the Well-led domain.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused follow-up of information without undertaking a site visit to follow up on:

  • The breaches of regulation from the inspection on 16 September 2021.
  • The areas identified where the provider should make improvements from the inspection on 16 September 2021.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account 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
  • Requesting evidence from the provider

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 have rated this practice as Good overall

We found that:

  • The provider had made improvements to the service since the last inspection.
  • Significant events were recorded and actions identified to make changes where needed.
  • Audits had been carried out and a 12 month programme was in place.
  • The systems for monitoring patient medication had been revised and a full-time pharmacist was now employed.
  • A system had been put in place to review prescribing by non-medical prescribers.
  • A deputy practice manager had been employed since the last inspection to assist with the operation of the service.
  • Clinical meetings were continuing to not take place on a regular basis. The provider told us how they were addressing this.
  • The uptake of cervical screening remained below the England average 80% target. The provider was continuing to take action to address this.
  • The arrangements for clinical leadership had been revised but were not formally documented.
  • The provider was liaising with other health and social care professionals to discuss safeguarding concerns however formal meetings were not taking place.
  • The provider reviewed children identified as being at risk in-house but this was not recorded.

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

  • Work with other health and social care professionals to regularly discuss safeguarding concerns for patients identified as being at risk.
  • Make a record of the in-house reviews undertaken of children identified as at risk.
  • Improve the cervical screening uptake.
  • Carry out a review of significant events to identify any patterns or trends.
  • Formally document the leadership arrangements in place when the provider is absent and how the provider oversees the service when not on-site.
  • Put in place a plan for the development of the service to better meet the needs of patients and staff that has been developed following consultation with them.
  • Ensure regular clinical meetings take place.

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

16 September 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Newtown Surgery on 14 – 16th September 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led – Requires Improvement

Following our previous inspection on 4 March 2020, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall and the key questions safe and well-led. Effective, caring and responsive key questions were rated Good.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a focused inspection to:

  • Inspect the key questions of safe, effective and well-led.
  • Follow up on breaches of regulation 17 and 19 and areas where the provider should improve as identified in our previous inspection.

The key questions caring and responsive were not inspected and so the ratings of good have been carried forward from the previous inspection.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account 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 have rated this practice as Good overall and good for all population groups aside from working age people which was rated requires improvement because of poor uptake of cancer screening.

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.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • 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.
  • The overall governance arrangements were not always effective.

We found one breach of regulations. The provider must:

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

The areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Work with other health and social care professionals to regularly discuss safeguarding concerns for patients identified as being at risk.
  • Formalise the system for reviewing the practice of clinical staff to ensure prescribing is appropriate
  • Review the clinical leadership arrangements available to staff
  • Fully document the process undertaken for patient medication reviews.
  • Monitor the medicines prescribed by secondary care services.
  • Review unplanned admissions and readmissions and take appropriate action.
  • Improve the cervical screening uptake

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

04/03/2020

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Newtown Surgery on 4 March 2020 as part of our inspection programme.

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 received 33 CQC feedback cards given to patients before and during the inspection. The majority of comments made by patients were positive about the services provided and the practice staff.

We have rated this practice as requires improvement overall.

We rated the service as requires improvement for providing safe and well-led services because:

•The provider did not follow recruitment processes to meet requirements for all staff. The practice did not have clear and effective processes for managing all risks, issues and performance.

We rated the service as good for providing effective, caring and responsive services because:

•Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.

•Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.

•The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

The area where the provider must make improvements:

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

•Ensure all systems and processes are effective to minimise risks to service users and staff.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements:

•Review and update policies to ensure they contain all the information required to support staff in their roles.

•Work with other health and social care professionals to regularly discuss safeguarding concerns for patients identified as being at risk.

•Continue to review and monitor the clinical performance data that falls below the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and national averages.

•Review unplanned admissions and readmissions and take appropriate action.

•Establish practice and clinical meetings for opportunities to engage and communicate with staff formally.

•Include all information regarding complaints and concerns in the practice policy and documentation for patients.

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