You are here

Woodland Drive Medical Centre Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woodland Drive Medical Centre on 18 January 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.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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 was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

We saw three areas of outstanding practice:

  • Patients told us that the nurse would arrive at work early to see a patient who required regular treatment but could not attend during normal nurse appointment times.

  • The nurse reviewed all unplanned hospital admissions and identified those who attended on multiple occasions. These patients were then sent an appointment to discuss any health or social needs with the nurse and she would work closely with the GP, community matrons and other members of the multidisciplinary team with the aim to reduce hospital attendance. We saw evidence of a reduction in unplanned hospital attendance and one patient had not had to attend hospital for six months since this support was implemented.

  • We were also told that practice staff noticed an elderly patient becoming increasingly unkempt. A member of staff suggested they make him an appointment, he agreed and from this, support was made available through social services. We were told this had made a difference to the patient and his family.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

  • There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • Lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the practice.

  • When there were unintended or unexpected safety incidents, patients received reasonable support, truthful information and a verbal and written apology. They were told about any actions to improve processes to prevent the same thing happening again.

  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework showed patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality and compared to the national average.

  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.

  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.

  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.

  • Staff worked with multidisciplinary teams to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed patients rated the practice as comparable to others for almost all aspects of care. For example, 88% of respondents said the GP was good at listening to them compared to the CCG average of 87% and national average of 89%.

  • Feedback from patients about their care and treatment was consistently and strongly positive.

  • Staff were motivated and inspired to offer kind and compassionate care and worked to overcome obstacles to achieving this. For example, patients told us that the nurse would regularly arrive at work early to see a patient who could not attend during the usual appointment times for their treatment. 

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

  • Information for patients about the services available was easy to understand and accessible.

  • We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • Practice staff reviewed the needs of its local population and engaged with the NHS England Area Team and Clinical Commissioning Group to secure improvements to services where these were identified. We were told that the provider was engaging with the local public transport provider to improve bus services to the practice.

  • 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.

  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand, and the practice responded quickly when issues were raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders. There were clear instructions on how to complain on the practice web site and how to involve outside agencies if not resolved.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for being well-led.

  • The practice had a clear vision and strategy to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients. Staff were clear about the vision and their responsibilities in relation to this.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity and held regular governance meetings.

  • There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour. The partners encouraged a culture of openness and honesty. The practice had systems in place for knowing about notifiable safety incidents and ensured this information was shared with staff to ensure appropriate action was taken

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The virtual patient participation group was active.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels.

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

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.

  • There was some outstanding practice in that the nurse reviewed all unplanned hospital admissions and identified those who attended on multiple occasions, particularly those with long term conditions. These patients were then sent an appointment to discuss any health or social needs with the nurse and any long term condition reviews outstanding. They then worked closely with the GPs, community matrons and other members of the multidisciplinary team with the aim to reduce hospital attendance. We saw evidence of a reduction in unplanned hospital attendance for several patients.

  • Performance for diabetes related indicators were similar to the CCG average and national average and plans were in place to improve these figures with the support offered by the mulitidiciplinary team.

  • 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.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

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. Rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

  • In the last 12 months, 76% of patients diagnosed with asthma were reviewed.

  • 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 and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

  • We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Older people

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

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.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

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

  • Patients told us that the nurse would arrive at work early to see a patient who required regular treatment but could not attend during normal nurse appointment times.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

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

  • In the last 12 months, 74% of patients diagnosed with dementia had received a face to face review of their care, which was comparable to the national average.

  • Of people experiencing poor mental health, 87% had received an annual physical health check. This was comparable to the national average

  • The practice regularly worked with multi disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those living with dementia.

  • The practice carried out advance care planning for patients living 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 those living with dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 25 February 2016

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 homeless people, travellers and those with a learning disability.
  • The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.
  • The practice informed patients whose circumstances could make them vulnerable about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
  • Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in 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.