• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Brook Medical Practice Also known as Brook Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Ecton Brook Road, Ecton Brook, Northampton, Northamptonshire, NN3 5EN (01604) 401185

Provided and run by:
Brook Medical Practice

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 4 June 2015

Brook Medical Centre situated in Ecton Brook provide a range of primary medical services to patients who live in Ecton Brook and surrounding areas near the town centre of Northampton in Northamptonshire. The practice has a registered population of approximately 6619 patients. The practice population is predominantly white British but also serves patients from the ethnic minority groups.

Clinical staff at this practice includes three GP partners, two nurse prescribers and two qualified nurses. Management, administration and reception staff support the practice. Community nurses, health visitors and a midwife from the local NHS trusts also provide a service at this practice.

Out of hours care when the surgery is closed is through the NHS 111 service.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Brook Medical Centre.

The practice achieved an overall rating of good. This was based on our rating of all of the five domains. Each of the six population groups we looked at achieved the same good rating.

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.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • 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.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.

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

Importantly the provider should:

  • Review the vinyl flooring in the treatment room and ensure it meets current infection control requirements
  • Assess the carpeted areas in patient consultation rooms so the risk of fluid spillage is minimised
  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary employment checks for all staff
  • Ensure systems are in place to confirm medicines are being checked and managed appropriately
  • Review and formalise appraisal arrangements for all staff

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

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 that their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 4 June 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 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, and we saw evidence to confirm this. Appointments were available outside of school hours.

Older people

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Patients over 75 had a named GP to promote continuity of care. The practice premises were accessible to those with limited mobility. 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.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

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 a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). 92% of people experiencing poor mental health had received an agreed care plan in the preceding 12 months. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary 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 had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

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. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

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.