Archived: Berryfields Medical Centre

Updated 14 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 4 December 2014 at Berryfields Medical Practice, Colonel Grantham Avenue, Buckingham Park, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP19 9AP.

We spoke with patients, staff and reviewed a range of documents relating to how the practice provided services as part of the inspection process.

Berryfields Medical Centre is rated overall as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice is rated as requires improvement for safe. This was due to the lack of information to ensure staff were safely recruited. There were systems in place to ensure safe patient care and learning took place following adverse events and incidents. The premises were clean and patients were protected from the risk of infection. Systems were in place to ensure medicines were appropriately stored, handled and prescribed.
• The practice is rated as good for effective. Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current guidance and legislation. The practice promoted health education to empower patients and improve self-care.
• The practice is rated as good for caring. Patients spoke highly of the practice. They said they were always treated with dignity and respect. Staff were kind, compassionate and caring and this was confirmed by national patient survey data.
• The practice is rated as good for responsive. The practice had a significantly higher proportion of patients under the age of nine years compared to the local average. The practice worked to develop its services to take into account the needs of their population groups. Although the practice did not offer extended hours patients generally reported good access to appointments.
• The practice is rated as good for well led. The practice worked hard to monitor, evaluate and improve services. They worked in collaboration with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to develop their services. Staff enjoyed working for the practice and felt well supported and valued.

There were also areas of the practice where the provider must make improvements, importantly, the provider must:

• Ensure that all the recruitment checks are carried out and recorded as part of the staff recruitment process. 
• Ensure that criminal records checks through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) or risk assessments are carried out.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 19 March 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of patients with long-term conditions. There were emergency processes in place and referrals were made for patients whose health deteriorated suddenly. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medication 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 19 March 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young patients. 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 patients 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 patients were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this. The premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses. The practice was proactive in educating its patients. For example, one of GPs had provided a teaching session for parents to inform them about common signs of concern in their children and how to provide self-care appropriately.

Updated 19 March 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older patients. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older patients. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older patients in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older patients, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 19 March 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age patients (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 19 March 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of patients experiencing poor mental health (including patients with dementia). Ninety seven per cent of people experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia. The practice provided resources for patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations including the Mental Health Foundation and Alzheimer’s Society.

Updated 19 March 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances such as those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for patients with a learning disability and 95% of these patients had received a follow-up. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability. The practice worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable patients. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out-of-hours.