The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Mockett's Wood Surgery Also known as The Partners T/A Mocketts Wood Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Hopeville Avenue, St Peter's, Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2TR 0300 042 6130

Provided and run by:
The Mockett's Wood Surgery

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 Mockett's Wood 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 The Mockett's Wood Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

24 May 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of The Mockett’s Wood Surgery on 23 July 2019. The overall rating for this inspection was Inadequate and the practice was placed in special measures.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of The Mockett’s Wood Surgery on 16 and 19 November 2020. The purpose of the inspection was to follow up on areas previously identified as requiring improvement during the inspection conducted on 23 July 2019. We found that the practice had made significant improvements and was rated as Good overall.

The full versions of the reports for the July 2019 and November 2020 inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Mockett’s Wood Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

We carried out an announced inspection at Mockett’s Wood Surgery between 20 – 24 May 2022.

We conducted remote clinical searches on the practice’s computer system on 20 May 2022 and conducted an onsite inspection of the practice on 24 May 2022, under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions.

Why we carried out this inspection

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.

This was a comprehensive inspection to look at:

  • the key questions of safe, effective and well-led
  • whether compliance had been maintained following previous inspections which had previously placed this provider into special measures.

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

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Well-led - Good

We found that:

  • 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.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
  • Systems for managing safety alerts were effective.
  • The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.
  • The practice continued to routinely audit and monitor prescription of antibacterial items, had taken advice from the clinical commissioning group (CCG) medicines team and continued to provide patient and clinician education on this subject.

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

  • Consider revising practice systems so that they always alert staff to family and other household members of children on the risk register.
  • Continue to manage infection prevention and control risks to patients, staff and visitors.
  • Continue to monitor prescription of items prescribed for uncomplicated urinary tract infection, and the prescription of hypnotics.
  • Continue to monitor the uptake of childhood immunisations

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 November and 19 November 2020

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Mockett’s Wood Surgery. We conducted a remote review of documentation on the 16 November 2020 and conducted a location inspection on 19 November 2020. The purpose of the inspection was to follow up on areas previously identified as requiring improvement during the inspection conducted on 23 July 2019.

The practice was rated inadequate overall following their inspection on 23 July 2019. The practice was rated inadequate for providing safe, effective and well led services, requires improvement for being responsive and achieved a good rating for being caring. Improvements were required specifically in relation to;

  • Ensuring care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Ensuring that any complaint received is investigated and any proportionate action is taken in response to any failure identified by the complaint or investigation
  • Establishing effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

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.

This report utilised new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the practice.

We have rated this practice as good overall. The service was rated good for safe, caring, responsive and well led and requires improvement for effective. The practice had made significant improvements. We found;

  • The practice had listened to feedback, learnt, educated and trained staff, embedding improvements to their clinical governance.
  • The practice had appropriate emergency equipment and medicines in place.
  • Clinical staff had been appropriately immunised to keep them safe.
  • The practice ensured staff had undertaken appropriate employment checks with professional regulatory bodies and previous employers prior to being appointed.
  • The practice had assessed staff roles and ensured staff were appropriately appointed, trained and supported to operate safely and effectively within their competency.
  • Governance arrangements had been strengthened with clearer documentation of risks and mitigation strategies.
  • The practice had adapted to the challenges presented by COVID 19, improving patient access to online services and educating and training staff on managing risks in their working environments.
  • Staff spoken with were confident, enthusiastic and committed to delivering high quality compassionate and responsive care.

The practice should improve antibacterial prescribing to reduce negative variations in data.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements that have been made to the quality of care provided by this service

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

26 February 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Mockett’s Wood Surgery on 26 February 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • The practice 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 practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

We saw an area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had developed an initiative for older patients over the age of 75 with a purpose of providing an integrated and joint working approach in multi-disciplinary care, to reduce unplanned / emergency hospital admissions. A ‘care co-ordinator’ had been employed to organise the care and treatment interventions for this patient group and was the single point of contact for patients, their carers and community health and social care professionals. The care co-ordinator organised and arranged interventions and support from community multi-disciplinary teams and clinical support from the GP when required.

Available data indicated that unplanned / emergency hospital admissions for the previous six months were one of the lowest compared to other practices in the area.

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

The provider SHOULD:

  • follow the practice recruitment policy to ensure sufficient documented information is available in relation to the employment of staff – including information about references
  • review the staff training requirements in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Since our last inspection of 13 September 2013 we have found that the provider has made the necessary improvements to meet the required standards of regulation.

All staff have had their identity confirmed and the provider now holds photographic identification evidence of staff in their personal files.

12 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 12 patients; this included eight active members of the newly formed Patient Participation Group (PPG), and with clinical and non-clinical staff.

Patients we spoke with were very positive about the practice. All of the patients said that they could get an appointment when they needed one. One person told us 'I am so grateful for the walk in clinic on Mondays and Fridays, pity it's not available every day.' Another said 'Getting an appointment is easy; I have never had a problem. Plus we have a walk in clinic now too.'

Patients told us that the staff were friendly, helpful and compassionate. A patient told us 'What I appreciate is that the reception staff always acknowledge me when I come in, even if they are busy.' Another said 'My doctor has been a fantastic support to me and my family over the years.' Patients said that their care and treatment was explained to them by the clinical staff and that they could ask questions if there was anything that they did not understand.

There were good infection control practices in place. The practice was clean and tidy and people told us that it was always like this. A patient said 'I have never seen the practice anything but spotless.' Another said 'It's got that clean smell.'

Processes around recruitment were not robust as personnel records were incomplete.This meant that the provider could not ensure that staff had been checked thoroughly to work with vulnerable people.

The practice had procedures in place for dealing with complaints, comments and suggestions.