GP surgery ordered to improve safety
A busy GP practice - headed by a leading Lancashire doctor - has been told it needs to improve the safety of its services.

The discovery at Leyland Surgery was made following an inspection by a Care Quality Commission team.
The West Paddock surgery is led by Dr Gora Bangi, chairman of the Chorley and South Ribble Clinical Commissioning Group, which is responsible for planning and commissioning health care services in the area.
In a draft report, the inspection team rated the practice, which has around 5,567 patients, as “requires improvement” overall. That’s a downgrade since its last CQC inspection in December 2016 when it received a “good” rating.
The report said the surgery “did not always have clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. The risk of a backlog of patient information that had not been viewed by GPs or entered onto patient record had not been assessed”.
Most Popular
-
1
Morecambe mum spiked on night out in Lancaster brought back from dead 30 times
-
2
'Get on with it!': Hurry-up call for NHS bosses to deliver a new Royal Preston Hospital
-
3
Blackpool man loses an incredible 18st by eating Aldi's low calorie meals - and he now helps his 160,000 followers on TikTok
-
4
‘How a car crash saved my life’: Royal Preston patient recalls chance cancer diagnosis as hospital’s major trauma centre marks tenth anniversary
-
5
Kiena Dawes: woman who died after being hit by train in Garstang named as 23-year-old mum of one
It added that “learning and actions taken in response to incidents was not always consistent.”
Specifically, the inspection found that the practice generally had appropriate systems to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse. However there was no evidence patients on a register of vulnerable children and young people “were regularly reviewed”.
Areas where improvement must be made included ensuring “sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced persons are deployed to meet the fundamental standards of care and treatment”.
The practice said it had received the draft report. It said it had been published by the CQC in error and should not have been made public. It added that the surgery was in the “factual accuracy” phase of the CQC process and was contesting the report.