You are here

Archived: City Health Care Partnership CIC - Newington Health Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 February 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Newington Health Centre on 24 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

This practice initially registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2015 and as a result of this did not take part in the national GP patient survey. Some data included in the report is based on the findings of the practice following monitoring of patient experiences and may not include comparisons with local and national data.

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.

In addition the provider should:

  • Review the systems in place to ensure the confidentiality of patient information in the waiting area.

  • Patient suggestions and comments should be monitored on a regular basis.

  • Ensure policies are readily available at all times to staff that need them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 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, people received reasonable support, truthful information, a verbal and written apology and 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 people safe and safeguarded from abuse.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • Data showed patient outcomes were below average for the locality.

  • 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 11 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • However, data showed that patients rated the practice as lower than others for some aspects of care. For example:

    • 68% said the GP was good at listening to them compared to the CCG average of 92% and national average of 91%.

    • 69% said the last GP they spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern compared to the CCG average of 82% and national average of 85%.

    • 60% said the GP gave them enough time compared to the CCG average of 84% and national average of 86%.

  • 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 also saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 February 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • It 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. The practice worked with the CCG and the community professionals to identify their patients who were at high risk of attending accident and emergency or having an unplanned admission to hospital.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • 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.

  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed that the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 February 2016

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

  • It 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

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The patient participation group was not currently 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 11 February 2016

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

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

  • Nationally reported data for 2014/2015 showed that outcomes for patients with long term conditions were generally good. However, performance for diabetes related indicators was 40.7%, this was below the local CCG and national average.

  • 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 medicines 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 11 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.

  • 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.

  • Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed the practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 95.0%, which was 3.6% below the local CCG average and 2.6% below the national average.

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

Older people

Good

Updated 11 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.

  • It 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 11 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.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 11 February 2016

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

  • Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed 32.0% of people diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months. This was significantly lower than other practices.

  • Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed the percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had a comprehensive care plan documented in their record, in the preceding 12 months was 37.1%. This was significantly lower than other practices.

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

  • The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

  • It 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 people with mental health needs and dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 11 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.

  • 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.

Other CQC inspections of services

Community & mental health inspection reports for City Health Care Partnership CIC - Newington Health Centre can be found at City Health Care Partnership CIC.