Archived: Dr Krishnakant Buch Also known as Dr K H Buch

Updated 1 November 2016

Dr Krishnakant Buch is also known as Lower Broughton Health Centre/1 and is commissioned by Salford Clinical Commissioning Group. The practice is near to Manchester city centre. The address of the practice is Lower Broughton Health Centre, Great Clowes Street, Salford, M7 1RD.

It is located on a main road into the city centre and has good transport links. The practice has a small car park for patients to use.

The practice has approximately 2500 registered patients and serves a diverse population group including a mix of all age groups. The practice is a teaching practice and takes medical students from the University of Manchester.

The practice offers a wide range of services including family planning advice, baby clinics, antenatal clinics, counselling services and flu clinics.

The practice is a single handed male GP who employs a practice nurse, a practice manager, a health promotion co-ordination and a team of administration staff.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Appointments are from 9am to 11.30am every morning and 3.30pm to 5.30pm daily. Extended hours appointments are offered from 6.30pm to 8pm every Tuesday. In addition to pre-bookable appointments that can be booked up to six weeks in advance, urgent appointments are also available for people that need them.

Outside of practice opening times, patients are diverted to the 111 out of hour’s service.

Updated 1 November 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Krishnakant Buch (also known as Lower Broughton Medical Practice/1) on 30 September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments 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.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice had been subject to a severe flooding which resulted in the complete loss of the computer systems and also the power to the building. The practice effectively managed the situation and remained committed in order to resume to a full service as quickly as possible and to minimise the impact to patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Consider the need for a formalised system to record at risk and vulnerable patients.
• Consider having a set agenda for practice meetings and include non clinical staff in team meetings.
• Monitor QOF performance to ensure improvements continue to be made.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 1 November 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 1 November 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.
• Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 1 November 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 1 November 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

• The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.
• The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 1 November 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

• 86% of patients diagnosed with dementia that had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is comparable to the national average of 84%.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.
• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.
• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.
• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 1 November 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.
• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing and how to contact relevant agencies but the practice did not have a formal way of recording adults that were at risk or vulnerable.