You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 May 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Weelsby View Health Centre - Dr Pillanna Suresh Babu on 30 June 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 30 June 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Weelsby View Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We carried out a further announced comprehensive inspection at Weelsby View Health Centre - Dr Pillanna Suresh Babu on 11 April 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.

However, there was an area of practice where the provider needs to make improvement.

Importantly, the provider should

  • Carry out clinical re-audits to ensure improvements have been achieved.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 May 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 and recording 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.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff demonstrated that they understood their responsibilities and all had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults relevant to their role.
  • The practice had adequate arrangements to respond to emergencies and major incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 May 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.
  • There was limited evidence that audit was driving improvement in patient outcomes.
  • Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was evidence of personal development plans for all staff. There was no evidence of annual staff appraisals.
  • Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 May 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice higher than others for all aspects of 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 5 May 2017

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • 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 two examples reviewed showed the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 May 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 and attended staff meetings and training opportunities.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. In three examples we reviewed we saw evidence the practice complied with these requirements.
  • The practice 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.
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 5 May 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.
  • 95% of patients on the diabetes register had a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months (01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016). This was better than the CCG average of 88% and the national average of 90%.
  • 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.
  • Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
  • There were emergency processes for patients with long-term conditions who experienced a sudden deterioration in health.
  • 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.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 5 May 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 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.
  • 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. 

Older people

Good

Updated 5 May 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.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 5 May 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 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 5 May 2017

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

  • 94% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is comparable to the CCG average of 90% and better than the national average of 84%.
  • 100% of patients with schizophrenia and other psychoses had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in preceding 12 months which is better than the CCG average of 92% and better than the national average of 89%.
  • The practice specifically considered the physical health needs of patients with poor mental health and dementia. For example home visits were offered.
  • The practice had a system for monitoring repeat prescribing for patients receiving medicines for mental health needs.
  • 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.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 5 May 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 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 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.