The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Neston Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Mellock Lane, Little Neston, Neston, Merseyside, CH64 4BN (0151) 336 3951

Provided and run by:
Neston Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

This assessment was carried out on 21 and 23 January 2025. Neston Surgery is a GP practice which provides a range of primary medical services from its location Neston Surgery, Little Neston, CH64 4BN. The practice delivers service to approximately 8,900 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The provider is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the following regulated activities; diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, family planning, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. We assessed all five key questions to establish if the services provided are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We rated all key questions as good and the service rated as good overall. The National General Practice Profiles states that the practice has a higher than average older patient population. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. The service had a good learning culture. The premises were clean and well-maintained, and risks had been assessed and mitigated. There were sufficient numbers of staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Staff managed medicines well overall. Care and treatment was provided in line with best practice guidance. People who used the service were treated with kindness and compassion and staff protected their privacy and dignity. People could access the service readily. The provider worked to reduce health and care inequalities. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and continuous improvement.

5 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Neston Surgery on 5 July 2016.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety, for example, infection control procedures, medication management and the management of staffing levels.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Staff were aware of procedures for safeguarding patients from the risk of abuse.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. However, the system for reviewing all long term conditions should be improved to ensure it is effective.
  • Staff felt well supported. They received training appropriate for their roles and an appraisal every 12 months.
  • Patients were positive about the care and treatment they received from the practice. The National Patient Survey January 2016 showed that patients’ responses about whether they were treated with respect, compassion and involved in decisions about their care and treatment were comparable to or above local and national averages.
  • Services were planned and delivered to take into account the needs of different patient groups.

  • The National GP Patient Survey results showed that patient’s satisfaction with access to care and treatment was in line with local and national averages.

  • Information about how to complain was available. There was a system in place to manage complaints.
  • There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • A documented risk assessment should be put in place to minimise the risks from staff who have not had a DBS check and who act as chaperones.

  • Establish a system to check the continuing suitability of GPs by checking the GMC and Performers List.

  • Document reviews of significant events to demonstrate that actions identified have been implemented.

  • Nationally published data showed patient outcomes were lower for some long term conditions when compared to local and national averages. The systems for monitoring that patients were receiving the health care checks they needed at the recommended frequencies should be improved.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

2 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Neston Surgery provides medical services to approximately 8,600 patients registered at the practice in Neston, Merseyside.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to deliver the regulated activities:

  • Diagnostic and screening procedures
  • Family planning
  • Maternity and midwifery services
  • Surgical procedures
  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

We had left Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards before our inspection, for patients to express their views. We found 30 cards had been completed, the majority of which carried positive comments about the service.

GPs and practice nurses had systems in place to ensure that patients with on-going health conditions, who required close monitoring over time, received treatment that met their needs. Patients who were required to have regular blood tests were able to use the phlebotomy service at the practice.

The practice supported frail and elderly patients in two local nursing homes. Clinicians work was focussed on minimising any unplanned admissions of these patients to hospital.

We saw examples of how clinicians at the practice worked with other professionals and services to deliver the best possible outcomes for patients. For example, in cases of patients receiving palliative care.

We were able to speak to parents and carers of children who were patients of the practice. They told us they never experienced a problem getting appointments to see a GP.

Each GP took the lead in care for a particular population group.  There was no lead GP with responsibility for patients who may be vulnerable due to their circumstances, for example, homeless patients or patients from travelling communities, as this was not a population group that was prevalent in the area. However there was a GP lead for patients with any learning disabilities and for those patients who experienced poor mental health. These patient groups were called for regular health checks on an annual basis which protected their physical health.