Archived: Dr Sylvester, Dr Hobbs and Dr Ford

Updated 24 March 2017

The GP partnership of Dr Hobbs, Dr Bashforth, Dr Sylvester and Dr Ford is situated in The Square in the village of Liphook. It is known as the Liphook Village Surgery and is located in a purpose built property with easily accessible free parking nearby. Disabled parking bays are directly in front of the practice building.

The practice is part of the South Eastern Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group. There are approximately 5600 patients on the practice list. This is in the top 10% of the least deprived areas of the country.

The practice has one male and two female GP partners and a female salaried GP. The GPs are supported by a nurse practitioner, two practice nurses and two health care assistants. Further support is provided by a practice manager and administrative and reception staff. The practice is open 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday with evening GP appointments available three evenings until 7.30pm. Patients requiring a GP outside of normal working hours are advised to contact the 111 service to be directed to an external out of hours service. This information is clearly displayed in the reception area and on the practice website. The practice has a GMS (General Medical Services) contract.

We inspected the only location for this practice

Liphook Village Surgery

The Square

Liphook

Hampshire

GU30 7AQ

Updated 24 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Hobbs, Dr Bashforth, Dr Sylvester and Dr Ford, also known as Liphook Village Surgery on 8 July 2015. The practice was rated good for effective, caring, responsive and well-led, and was rated requires improvement for safe. The overall rating for the practice was good. The full comprehensive report on the July 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Hobbs, Dr Bashforth, Dr Sylvester and Dr Ford on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 10 January 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 8 July 2015. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

At our previous inspection on 8 July 2015, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services as the patient group directions for authorising nurses to administer medicines such as for vaccines had not been correctly authorised.

Our key finding for 10 January 2017

• We found that the patient group directions had been correctly authorised.

The practice is now rated as good for providing safe services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the population group of people with long term conditions. The practice was aware of those patients with long term conditions and had processes in place to make urgent referrals to hospital should it be necessary and to arrange longer appointments or home visits where needed. All these patients had structured annual reviews to check their health and medication needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs the patient’s GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 20 August 2015

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 who were at risk. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in and out of hours.

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. We saw examples of children prioritised for urgent same day appointments.

Updated 20 August 2015

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. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. The GPs visited local care homes each week and worked with home staff to produce care plans. Older patients had a designated named GP.

The patient participation group had established a carers group which had developed into a village organisation for the benefit of all carers. GPs sign-posted patients to this group or with the patient’s consent arranged for the carers group to make contact.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of this group had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care. For example the practice offered evening appointments with the GP and telephone consultations were available instead of patients attending the practice. The practice offered online prescription ordering and patients could also book appointments on line.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). Data showed the percentage of patients diagnosed with dementia that had a face to face review in the preceding 12 months was higher than the national average. The practice was also higher than the national average for the number of patients, experiencing poor mental health, who had an agreed documented care plan in the record.

A psychiatrist held a clinic at the practice once a month which improved access to patients experiencing poor mental health. Practice staff were aware of this patient group through alerts on their records and were flexible with their appointment system to ensure they were seen as quickly as possible.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice had a register of vulnerable patients. There were a group of travellers registered at the practice who were encouraged to stay registered for continuity of care. All staff were aware of the families and their social, cultural and health needs. The practice did not have an enhanced service for the provision of care to patients with a learning disability; however they actively encouraged these patients to attend for annual health checks.