You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Central Park Surgery on 20 July 2017. 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 a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients we spoke with 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.
  • 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 the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice:

  • Practice staff provided support to patients in unique situations out of their core hours. One patient whose child was diagnosed with a life limiting condition told us they were given a mobile number to contact the GP. They told us the support and care offered by the whole practice team was exemplary and gave them comfort and confidence at extremely difficult times.

  • Patients were encouraged to attend national screening programmes in innovative ways. In March 2017 the practice raised money for Cancer Research UK by each member of staff completing ten thousand daily steps and promoting this in the practice. This contributed to a 30% increase in cervical screening over a four month period.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Undertake a legionella risk assessment to determine the correct level of legionella control regime required

  • Review the use of clinical audit to include full audit cycles and demonstrate continuous quality improvement in patient outcomes.

  • Embed new systems relating to significant events and safety alerts

  • Revisit the recent infection control audit to document an effective response to the areas identified.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

  • From the sample of documented examples we reviewed, we found there was an effective system for reporting significant events; lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the practice. When things went wrong patients were informed as soon as practicable, received reasonable support, truthful information, and a written apology. They were told about any actions to improve processes to prevent the same thing happening again. All relevant staff we spoke to were aware of actions taken in response to significant events, however not all discussions held with the practice team were documented and actions taken as a result of safety alerts, although disseminated to relevant staff, were not formally recorded.

  • Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.

  • The practice had adequate arrangements to respond to emergencies and major incidents.

  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety.

  • The practice had arranged a recent test to confirm that legionella was not present in the practice water system. They conducted regular water flushes however there was no up to date legionella risk assessment to determine the actions to be taken.

  • The practice was clean and tidy with cleaning schedules and monitoring of these in place. However a recently completed infection control audit had not lead to a documented action plan.

  • Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.

  • The practice had adequate arrangements to respond to emergencies and major incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

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 compared to the national average.

  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance.

  • Clinical audits were not currently full cycle audits to demonstrate continuous improvement in patient care

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

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

  • Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

  • On the day of the inspection we were told that all correspondence would be seen by senior clinicians.

  • End of life care was coordinated with other services involved.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice in-line with others for most aspects of care.

  • CQC comments cards and patients we spoke to on the day spoke very highly of the practice team and told us they were treated with empathy and care.

  • Survey information we reviewed showed that 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 accessible.

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

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • The practice understood its population profile and had used this understanding to meet the needs of its population.

  • The practice took account of the needs and preferences of patients with life-limiting conditions, including patients with a condition other than cancer and patients living with dementia.

  • Patients we spoke with 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 evidence from six examples reviewed showed the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

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 it.

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

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

  • Staff had received inductions, annual performance reviews and attended staff meetings and training opportunities.

  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. In examples we reviewed we saw evidence the practice complied with these requirements.
  • The provider encouraged a culture of openness and honesty. The practice had systems for being aware of notifiable safety incidents and sharing the information with staff and ensuring appropriate action was taken.

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients and we saw examples where feedback had been acted on. The practice engaged with the patient participation group.

  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels. Staff training was a priority and was built into staff rotas.

Checks on specific services

Older people

Good

Updated 21 September 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 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

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 21 September 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.

    • Performance for diabetes related indicators was variable when compared to the local and national average. For example, the percentage of patients who had their blood sugar levels well-controlled was 76% compared to the local average of 82% and national average of 78% and the percentage of patients with blood pressure readings within recommended levels was 81% compared to the local average of 80% and national average of 78%.

  • 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. The practice had recently introduced a ‘one stop’ appointment to avoid the need for patients with more than one condition having to access the practice on multiple occasions. 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 21 September 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 above standard for all standard childhood immunisations.

  • 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 had emergency processes for acutely ill children and young people and for acute pregnancy complications.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 21 September 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. The practice had recently ceased providing weekend clinics due to funding cuts, however they were looking at ways of how this could be provided in the future.

  • 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.

  • Telephone appointments with GPs were available in addition to face-to-face appointments

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 21 September 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 and those with a learning disability.

  • Vulnerable people were contacted three times by letter (in an easy read format if needed) and once by telephone to encourage them to attend review appointments. This resulted in a high attendance rate for these patients

  • 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 or other identified needs.

  • 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.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 21 September 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.

  • 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.

  • Performance for mental health related indicators was the same of better when compared to the local and national average.For example, 94% of people experiencing poor mental health had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in the record compared to the local average of 94% and national average of 89% and 97% had their alcohol consumption recorded compared to 94% locally and 89% nationally.

  • 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.