Archived: Prospect Medical Practice

Updated 18 February 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this practice on 6 October 2015.  A breach of legal requirements was found. Patients were not protected against the risks associated with either having appropriate checks or a risk assessment on staff who undertook chaperone duties.

The provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that staff that undertake chaperone duties had received a disclosure and barring check (DBS) or had a written risk assessment completed.

We undertook this focused follow up inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports' link for on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 26 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions overall. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safe. The concerns which led to this rating 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. 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. Practice staff followed up patients who did not attend their appointments by telephone. The practice loaned equipment to patients to encourage self-monitoring of some conditions for example blood pressure monitors.

Updated 26 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children, and young people overall. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safe. The concerns which led to this rating 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 patients who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were average for all standard childhood immunisations. Young children were given priority appointments for urgent need ensuring that children with ailments such as ear ache did not wait too long.

Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors, and school nurses.

Updated 26 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people overall. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safe. The concerns which led to this rating apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice held regular meetings with the extended team of community specialists including community matrons. Patients had a named GP and the practice had a system to ensure that the preferred place of care for patients was recorded and available to other agencies. Home visits were available for those that needed them, including for chronic disease management and flu immunisations. Local organisation such as Age UK and a health trainer, who offers support and advice with health lifestyle choices, attended the practice to see patients.

Updated 26 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students) overall. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safe. The concerns which led to this rating apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The needs of the working age population, including 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 reflected the needs for this age group. The practice did not restrict patients to certain appointment times to attend for their annual reviews; patients who worked were able to book at times that were convenient to them. NHS health checks were available.

Updated 26 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) overall. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safe. The concerns which led to this rating apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

Ninety three per cent of patients experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

Same day appointments or telephone triage with a GP was offered to ensure that any health needs were quickly assessed for this group of patients.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff had received training on how to care for patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 26 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable overall. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safe. The concerns which led to this rating apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those living in hostels, homeless patients, travellers and those with a learning disability. It offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability and carried out annual health checks.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable patients. We saw the practice provided vulnerable patients information 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. Reception staff were intuitive to the needs of this group of patients and demonstrated that they had a personalised approach to helping them.