Archived: Riverside Kelsey Surgery Also known as The Riverside Partnership

Updated 23 April 2018

Riverside Kelsey Surgery is registered as a location through the CQC to provide the following registered activities: treatment of disease, disorder and injury; surgical procedures; midwifery; family planning and diagnostic and screening. Dr Charles Richard Dawson is the registered provider. Riverside Kelsey is the only location.

Riverside Kelsey Surgery is also known by patients as ‘The Riverside Partnership’ and is situated in the town of Liss in Hampshire. The practices website can be found at the following address: www.theriversidepartnership.co.uk

The practice is located at 75 Station Road, Liss, Hampshire, GU33 7AD.

The practice is located in an area of low deprivation being on the 9th decile out of 10 on the deprivation scale (the lower the number the more deprived the area is considered to be). The practice population is similar to national averages with a slightly lower than average level of working aged people.

Updated 23 April 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Riverside Kelsey Surgery on 6 June 2017. The overall rating for the practice was good; the practice was rated as good for providing services that were effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The safe domain was rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the June 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Riverside Kelsey Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 22 February 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 6 June 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice remains rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had undertaken a review of policies and procedures. And were in the process of having version control measures added to them.

• The practice had ensured that there was documentation to evidence all staff had received required training for their roles. The practice had updated their training matrix to identify when refresher training was required for each staff and booked these into the diary.

• All new employees had a completed health declaration questionnaire in their staff personnel files, completed as part of the recruitment checks.

• The practice had added a numerical coding system for significant events and complaints reporting. Each incident or complaint was given a code and all subsequent documents relating to that event were tagged to that code.

• The practice had increased their number of carers to just over 1% of the patient population.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 7 July 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• Nursing staff had lead roles in long-term disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• The percentage of patients with asthma who had a review of their condition in the past 12 months was 76.6% which is in line with clinical commissioning group and national averages of 77.7% and 75.6% respectively.

• The practice followed up on patients with long-term conditions discharged from hospital and ensured that their care plans were updated to reflect any additional needs.

• There were emergency processes for patients with long-term conditions who experienced a sudden deterioration in health.

• All these patients had a named GP and there was a system to recall patients for 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.

• All patients identified with a long term condition had six monthly medication reviews, most of which were done as face to face consultations.

Updated 7 July 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• From the sample of documented examples we reviewed we found there were systems 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 accident and emergency (A&E) attendances.

• Immunisation rates were below national averages for childhood immunisations. However, the practice evidenced unpublished statistics to show these had improved to in-line with or above national averages for 2016-2017.

• There were no set clinics for baby immunisations instead appointments were made to suit the availability of the parent.

• Patients told us, on the day of inspection, that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals.

• The practice provided support for premature babies and their families following discharge from hospital.

  Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• The practice worked with midwives, health visitors and school nurses to support this population group. For example, in the provision of ante-natal, post-natal and child health surveillance clinics.

• The practice sent out personalised birth congratulations cards to new parents with a reminder for mums to book in for their own and their baby’s six week check-up.

Updated 7 July 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

• Staff were able to recognise the signs of abuse in older patients and knew how to escalate any concerns.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older patients in its population.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The practice conducted a weekly ward round at the local nursing home; and there was a dedicated bypass telephone line for the nursing home to have easy access to the practice.

• The practice identified at an early stage older patients who may need palliative care as they were approaching the end of life. It involved older patients in planning and making decisions about their care, including their end of life care.

• The practice followed up on older patients discharged from hospital and ensured that their care plans were updated to reflect any extra needs.

• Where older patients had complex needs, the practice shared summary care records with local care services.

• Older patients were provided with health promotional advice and support to help them to maintain their health and independence for as long as possible.

Updated 7 July 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of working age people (including those recently retired and students).

• The needs of these populations 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, extended opening hours.

• 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.

• Online prescription ordering was available with the facility for prescriptions to be sent to the patients’ choice of chemist so that they could collect medicines directly from there.

Updated 7 July 2017

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

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

• 73% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is below the national average of 83.8%.

• The practice specifically considered the physical health needs of patients with poor mental health and dementia.

• The practice specifically considered the physical health needs of patients with poor mental health and dementia.

• The practice had a system for monitoring repeat prescribing for patients receiving medicines for mental health needs.

• 97.7% of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or other psychoses had had their alcohol consumption recorded within the previous 12 months compared to the clinical commissioning group average of 94% and national average of 89.3%.

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

• Patients at risk of dementia were identified and offered an assessment.

• The practice had information available for patients experiencing poor mental health about how they could access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• The practice had a system to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff interviewed had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 7 July 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 homeless people, travellers and those with a learning disability.

• End of life care was delivered in a coordinated way which took into account the needs of those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability. Home visits were offered to complete learning disability health checks in order to minimise anxiety.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice had information available for vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff interviewed knew how to recognise signs of abuse in children, young people and adults whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. They 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.