PATFORD House Surgery Partnership has been placed on special measures following an inadequate report from the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The CQC carried out an announced inspection in May to check if the practice had complied with warning notices handed out in December 2020, as well as other areas of concern.

One of these areas was the practice not investigating all of the complaints received, poorly maintained equipment and staff training.

The partnership covers Patford House in Calne, Sutton Benger Surgery and Beversbrook Medical Centre and services around 17,000 patients.

READ MORE: Plans for new housing including starter homes denied and more planning decisions from this week

According to the group, Patford House Surgery Partnership was rated inadequate in relation to if it was “responsive and well-led, and requires improvement for being safe, effective, and caring”.

Head of inspection for primary medical services at CQC, Neil Cox said: “We had several concerns when we inspected Patford House Surgery Partnership recently, not least of which, was that the practice had not investigated all complaints received about the service, and it had not ensured that that learning from complaints was shared with staff.

“In addition, some equipment had not been properly maintained and was not suitable for purpose, not all staff were up to date with the necessary training and the practice did not have effective systems in place to ensure that patients who were on high-risk medicines were being effectively monitored.

“We have now told the provider they must make improvements in a number of areas, in order to bring the service in line with legal requirements and to keep people safe.

READ MORE: 1,300 army houses lie empty in Wiltshire which could house refugees, says council leader

“The practice has now been put in special measures, which means we will keep it under review, and return to inspect again within six months to check that improvements have been made.

“If we are not satisfied that the required improvements have been made at that point, we will consider whether we need to take further enforcement action.”

In a statement, Patford House Partnership said: “While we are of course disappointed with this latest rating from the Care Quality Commission, we know what action needs to be taken to get our practice back to where it needs to be, and are addressing these issues as a matter of urgency.

“It’s important for us to reassure our patients across our three sites that their safe care and treatment for patients remains our number one priority, and this is a view shared by all members of the team at Patford House Partnership.

“We strongly believe in having a two-way dialogue with the people who use our services, and would encourage any person with concerns about their care to contact us directly.”

Dr Andrew Girdher, clinical chair, Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire Clinical Commissioning Group: “As with all practices in our area, we have a positive working relationship with Patford House Partnership and are supporting the team in addressing all areas of concern outlined by the Care Quality Commission in its most recent report.

“Local people should not view this current rating as a permanent position for the practice, and we are confident that the improvements now being implemented will help return Patford House Partnership to the standard that patients and staff rightfully expect.

“Any person with concerns should contact our Patient Advice and Liaison Service team on 0300 561 0250 or at scwcsu.palscomplaints@nhs.net.”

Inspectors found the following:

  • The practice could not provide assurances that all patients received effective care and treatment.
  • The practice could not be assured that all medical equipment was safe and appropriate for use.
  • The monitoring of patients who were prescribed high risk medicines and those affected by medicines alerts, was not effective.
  • The processes to ensure significant incidents were raised and investigated appropriately was not always effective.
  • Staff had access to training and development. However, the processes to ensure staff remained qualified and competent for their role required improvement.
  • The practice collated patient feedback from a variety of sources, However, improvements relating to concerns raised by patients were limited.
  • Patient access was not monitored effectively to ensure services remained accessible to all patients as required.
  • The practice’s complaints process was not adequate.
  • The processes to identify and manage risks relating to fire safety, Legionella and Covid-19, were not effective.
  • Improvements in culture of the practice had not been consistent to ensure all staff felt comfortable to raise concerns.