The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: St Johns House Surgery Also known as Dr RA Ingles and Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

28 Bromyard Road, St Johns, Worcester, Worcestershire, WR2 5BU (01905) 423612

Provided and run by:
St Johns House Surgery

All Inspections

29 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Johns House Surgery on 29 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There were clearly defined processes and procedures to ensure patients were safe and an effective system was in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. This was regularly reviewed and discussed with staff.
  • Patients said they were treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Patients were involved with decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care delivered in line with current guidelines. Staff had the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Urgent same day patient appointments were available when needed. The majority of patients we spoke with and those who completed comment cards before our inspection said they were always able to obtain same day appointments, although a small number said it could be difficult to get an appointment at times.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said GPs gave them enough time and treated them with dignity and respect.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice employed a clinical pharmacist and at the time of our inspection was about to employ a second clinical pharmacist. They provided advice on areas such as prescribing, medicine reviews, repeat prescribing and hospital discharge reviews. This included patients who lived in the care homes served by the practice. This reduced GP’s workload. Close working had been developed with the clinical commissioning group (CCG) pharmacist.

  • One partner GP dealt exclusively with care home work. This enabled a consistent approach to be taken and a close working relationship to be developed with the care homes, care home staff and patients concerned. Learning was shared with other practices and the CCG. Some families had been given a mobile telephone number and/or email address for this GP to allow direct contact to be made. Since implementing this, there had been a reduction in patient falls and fractures and in unplanned hospital admissions.

  • The practice had formed a learning network with the CCG, the local healthcare trust, Worcestershire County Council and locally based housing associations. This was still being developed at the time of our inspection. One of the primary aims of this network was to explore external funding opportunities for improving local healthcare.

  • A staff member had received specialist training to work as a care navigator within the practice. Patients were referred to this staff member for help and advice on both healthcare and social care matters within the charitable and professional sectors. This enabled patients to access services they might otherwise be unaware of.

The area where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue work already in progress to identify more patients who were carers.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

1 October 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with eight patients and four members of staff.

When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to. One patient told us: "They usually ask, is that OK, are you happy with that. I am not coerced to have tests. They check with me". We found that when minor surgery had been carried out that consent had been requested from patients before the surgery had commenced.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. The patients we spoke with provided positive feedback about their care. A patient told us: "The standard of care is very high, no complaints at all. They are very good to me". Patients received their medicines when they needed them and their medicines were regularly reviewed.

Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from harm.

The premises had been well maintained. Patients had been informed of the proposed re-location of the practice to new purpose built premises at the end of this year.

The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system to regularly obtain opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by the practice staff.