You are here

Dr Yuen Fong Soloman Wong Good Also known as Ashton View Medical Centre

Reports


Inspection carried out on 28 November 2019

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We carried out an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us, including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on the following key questions:

  • are services effective
  • are services caring
  • are services well-led

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions:

  • are services safe - good
  • are services responsive - good

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups; with the exception of families, children and young people and working age people (including those recently retired and students), which were rated as being requires improvement.

We found that:

  • There were effective systems and processes in place to support good governance of the practice.
  • The lead GP and manager were visible, approachable and supportive of staff. Staff reported they felt valued and were positive about working at the practice.
  • There was a culture of openness, honesty and transparency.
  • There was a good understanding of the areas where they needed to improve, particularly relating to the Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) indicators.
  • The practice manager was pivotal in the development of the Primary Care Network childhood immunisations project, which was aimed at improving uptake rates within the local areas.
  • Patient comments submitted via the CQC comment cards were all positive regarding the service, care and treatment they received from the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to monitor and improve the identification of carers.
  • Continue to monitor and improve the uptake rates for childhood immunisations.
  • Continue to monitor and improve the uptake rates for cancer screening.
  • Formalise the induction programme for new staff.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence table.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care.

Inspection carried out on 18 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Yuen Fong Soloman Wong (known as Ashton View Medical Centre) on 18 May 2016. Overall, the practice is rated as good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care for all of the population groups it serves.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • The practice complied with the requirements of the duty of candour. (The duty of candour is a set of specific legal requirements that providers of services must follow when things go wrong with care and treatment.)
  • The practice promoted a culture of openness and honesty. All staff were encouraged and supported to record any incidents using the electronic reporting system. There was evidence of good investigation, learning and sharing mechanisms in place.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • There were safeguarding systems in place to protect patients and staff from abuse.
  • The practice sought patient views how improvements could be made to the service, through the use of patient surveys, the NHS Friends and Family Test and engagement with patients.
  • There was a clear leadership structure, staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and told us the GP and manager were accessible and supportive.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice had good facilities and was equipped to treat and meet the needs of patients.
  • Information regarding the services provided by the practice and how to make a complaint was readily available for patients.
  • Patients said they found it generally easy to make an appointment, there was continuity of care and urgent appointments were available on the same day as requested. The practice provided a combination of booked appointments and a daily walk-in clinic for patients.
  • The practice provided a NHS non-therapeutic (for religious or cultural reasons) circumcision service, for male babies up to the age of 12 weeks. Registered patients with all GP practices across the three Leeds Clinical Commissioning Groups had access to the service.
  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes were either comparable or below the national average. This was discussed with the practice and data they had collated for 2015/16 showed improvements.

There was one area where the provider should make improvements:

  • Continue to monitor Quality and Outcomes Framework results to improve outcomes for patients.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 2 July 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At the last inspection in January 2014 we found the registered person had not ensured that patients, staff and others were protected against identifiable risks of infection Regulation 12 (1) (2).

At this inspection we found people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Inspection carried out on 21 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four patients at the practice, four members of staff, the practice manager and the full-time doctor. Patients told us they were satisfied with the practice and did not have difficulty obtaining an appointment.

The practice information leaflet included details of the staff at the practice, the services available, the surgery times, how to make an appointment and an emergency contact number.

The waiting room included a good range of neatly organised health promotion and advice leaflets. Information about the practice Patient Participation Group (PPG) was clearly displayed on a separate notice board.

Staff were courteous and respectful to patients and visitors to the practice. They dealt efficiently with enquiries and there appeared to be a good rapport among the staff.

New patients were asked to provide details of their medical history, tobacco and alcohol consumption and where appropriate details of their carer or anyone they cared for. Patients were offered an appointment with the practice nurse for an initial health screen. Patients with on-going medical needs were prioritised for an appointment with one of the doctors.

Arrangements to reduce the risk and spread of infection were inadequate. The practice did not have a policy describing procedures for the identification and control of risks of infection. Some staff had not had training in infection control procedures.

Staff said they enjoyed working at the practice. They said the practice manager was very good and they felt well supported. One member of staff said they were, �Treated with respect as a member of staff and colleague.�

The practice participated in local clinical audit programmes and also carried out its own health and safety checks. The practice had made a suggestion/comments box available for patients. Efforts had also been made to encourage patients to join a Patient Participation Group (PPG) to advise the practice on improvements to the service.