Archived: Penvale Park Medical Centre

Updated 21 January 2016

Penvale Park Medical Centre provides a range of primary medical services to the residents in the NN4 area of Northampton. The practice has been at its current purpose built location since 1994.

The practice population has a higher than average number of patients under 54 years of age and a lower than average number over 60 years. National data indicates that the area is one of low deprivation. The practice has approximately 4200 patients and provides services under a general medical services (GMS) contract.

The practice is managed by two GP partners, both male. The nursing team consists of one nurse practitioner and a practice nurse. There are also six receptionists and one secretary led by a practice manager.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday and offers extended opening on Mondays until 8.30pm.

When the practice is closed out-of-hours services are provided by the Northamptonshire GP Out of Hours service which is run by Integrated Care 24 and can be accessed via the NHS 111 service.

Updated 21 January 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Penvale Park Medical Centre on 23 September 2015. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to infection control and health and safety. In particular the decontamination procedures.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.

• Non-clinical staff performing chaperone duties had not received training or disclosure and barring checks (DBS). The practice had not completed a risk assessment to determine if a check was required.

• 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.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment 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 sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

• Review infection control procedures including the carrying out of infection control audits. They must complete a risk assessment for the management, testing and investigation of legionella and implement any recommended checks to the water system. They must stop procedures that involve the use of locally sterilised equipment and adopt the NHS England decontamination guidance before these procedures recommence.

• Complete the business continuity plan and make it accessible to all staff.

• Ensure there are systems and processes in place to mitigate risks relating to the health and safety of patients when carrying out regulated activities. They must carry out regular fire drills to ensure staff know what to do in the event of a fire. They must complete a risk assessment to determine the need for an onsite defibrillator and document mitigating actions to take if they do not have one. Where non-clinical staff perform chaperone duties, the practice must provide training for this role and record a risk assessment on whether a DBS check is required.

• Start a patient participation group (PPG) to gather patient feedback.

Where a practice is rated as inadequate for one of the five key questions or one of the six population groups it will be re-inspected within six months after the report is published. If, after re-inspection, it has failed to make sufficient improvement, and is still rated as inadequate for any key question or population group, we will place it into special measures. Being placed into special measures represents a decision by CQC that a practice has to improve within six months to avoid CQC taking steps to cancel the provider’s registration.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 21 January 2016

The provider is rated as inadequate for safety and requires improvement for well-led. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group. 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 that their health and medication needs were being met.

Updated 21 January 2016

The provider is rated as inadequate for safety and requires improvement for well-led. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group. 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 parents were involved in their treatment options. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Updated 21 January 2016

The provider is rated as inadequate for safety and requires improvement for well-led. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. Longer appointments and home visits were available for older people when needed. All these patients had a named GP, an annual health check and care plans in place.

Updated 21 January 2016

The provider is rated as inadequate for safety and requires improvement for well-led. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group. 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 offered online appointment bookings and prescription requests. Telephone appointments were available for those patients who could not attend the practice and there were extended hours one evening a week. There was a range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs of this age group.

Updated 21 January 2016

The provider is rated as inadequate for safety and requires improvement for well-led. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group. Patients experiencing poor mental health were offered an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency (A&E) where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

Updated 21 January 2016

The provider is rated as inadequate for safety and requires improvement for well-led. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and offered longer appointments.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told 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, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.