Archived: Dr Ko and Partner

Updated 29 March 2017

Dr Ko and Partner is located in a purpose built building with one other practice, there is limited pay and display parking and good transport links including an underground station directly opposite. The practice is a part of Islington Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

There are 4012 patients registered at the practice, the practice has a young population with a higher than expected number of patients aged between 25 and 39. 39% of patients have a long standing health condition, which is lower than the CCG average of 45% and the national average of 54%.

The practice has two female GP partners, two male GPs and one female GP carrying out 16 sessions per week and two practice nurses carrying out nine sessions per week. There is a practice manager and three reception/administration staff members.

The practice operates under a General Medical Services (GMS) contact (a contract between NHS England and general practices for delivering general medical services and is the commonest form of GP contract).

The practice is open Monday to Friday between 8:30am and 6:30pm, phones lines are answered from 8:30am and appointment times are as follows:

• Monday 9:00am to 1:30pm and 2:10pm to 7:30pm

• Tuesday 9:00am to 11:30am and 2:10pm to 7:30pm

• Wednesday 9:00am to 11:30am and 2:10pm to 5:00pm

• Thursday 9:00am to 11:30am

• Friday 9:00am to 11:30am and 3:30pm to 6:00pm

The locally agreed out of hours provider covers calls made to the practice whilst it is closed.

Dr Ko and partner operates regulated activities from one location and is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide surgical procedures, diagnostic and screening procedures, treatment of disease, disorder or injury, maternity and midwifery services and family planning.

Updated 29 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Ko and Partners on 20 December 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.
• The practice held regular multidisciplinary meetings with external bodies.
• 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 carried out an annual analysis of the GP Patient Survey and used this to make changes to the practice.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 29 March 2017

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.

• All patients were offered six monthly reviews with the practice nurse.

• 83% of patients on the diabetes register had a record of a foot examination and risk classification in the preceding 12 months compared to the CCG average of 89% and the national average of 88%. Exception reporting was 4%, which was lower than the local and national average of 8%.

• 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 29 March 2017

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.

• Children under 5 years old were guaranteed an appointment for acute conditions.

• Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this.

• 75% of women aged 25 to 64 had a record of a cervical screening test documented in their notes in the preceding five years compared to a CCG average of 75% and a national average of 82%.

• 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 29 March 2017

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.

• The practice held a register of patient carers.

• Staff from the practice met as part of fortnightly multidisciplinary team meetings where these patients were discussed.

Updated 29 March 2017

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 offered extended hours evening appointments twice a week and was a part of the local HUB, which provided GP and nursing appointments on weekends.

• 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.

• Telephone consultations were available throughout the day.

• Email consultations for non-urgent conditions were available.

Updated 29 March 2017

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

• 80% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is comparable to the national average of 84%. Exception reporting was 0%, which was lower than the CCG average of 7% and the national average of 8%.
• 79% of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses had a comprehensive agreed care plan documented in the recorded in the preceding 12 months compared to the national average of 88%. Exception reporting was 3%, which was lower than the CCG average of 11% and the CCG average of 13%.

• 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 29 March 2017

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

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• These patients were given access to a priority access telephone number to enable increased access to a GP.

• These patients had access to walk in appointments.

• 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, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.