You are here

Archived: Woosehill Medical Centre Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 June 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woosehill Medical Centre on 23 September 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. However, the practice was rated requires improvement for the provision of caring services. We identified a breach in regulation relating to seeking, and acting upon, patient feedback in regard to the provision of caring services. At that time patient feedback was below national averages. The full comprehensive report on the September 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woosehill Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced desk-based review carried out on 19 May 2017 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 23 September 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

The practice is now rated as good for provision of caring services and the overall rating of good remains unchanged.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had conducted a patient satisfaction survey and received 124 responses.
  • Feedback regarding provision of caring services showed improvement.
  • The practice had appointed new GP partners and was expanding the clinical team to further improve services.
  • Nurses we spoke to on the telephone were aware of the requirements for taking consent for patients aged under 16 in accordance with guidance and legal requirements.

The actions and improvements undertaken by the practice were now ensuring that requirements relating to provision of caring services were being met

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 June 2017

Effective

Good

Updated 1 June 2017

Caring

Good

Updated 1 June 2017

The practice had taken appropriate action and is now rated as good for the provision of caring services.

  • The practice sought and acted upon patient feedback in regard to provision of caring services.
  • Patient feedback received in March 2017 in relation to being treated with care, compassion and involvement in decisions about their care showed improvement since the last inspection.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 June 2017

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 June 2017

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

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

  • Nursing staff supported the GPs in chronic disease management.
  • Patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
  • In 2014/15 the percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes achieving target blood pressure was 82% compared to the clinical commissioning group (CCG) average of 79% and national average of 78%.(In 2015/16 the practice achieved 87% of all the diabetes indicators). The data from 2014/15 refers to the achievements of the previous partnership.
  • 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.
  • The practice operated an effective system of recalling patients with long term conditions for their health reviews and follow ups. There was a focus on ensuring every opportunity was given to attend for these reviews.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 15 November 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 patients 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 patients were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this.
  • The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 84%, which was better than the CCG and national average of 82%.
  • 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 and health visitors.

Older people

Good

Updated 15 November 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 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.
  • Five patients who completed CQC comment cards made special mention of the highly compassionate care the practice gave to elderly relatives.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 15 November 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.
  • The practice offered early morning telephone consultations on three mornings every week and one evening.
  • Two Saturday clinics were held very month and one of these included the nurse practitioner. These extended hours benefited patients who found it difficult to attend during the working day. 

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

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

  • In 2014/15 89% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was better than the national average of 84%.
  • The percentage of patients with a severe and enduring mental health problem with an agreed care plan was 94% compared to the CCG average of 95% and national average of 88% (2015/16 achievement of this indicator was 96%) In both years the practice had not excepted any patients in this group from this indicator.
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.
  • The practice carried out advance care planning for patients 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 dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 15 November 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 other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.
  • The practice informed 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.