Archived: Dr Mohamed Hazeldene Also known as Mohamed Hazeldene

Updated 3 November 2016

Dr Mohamed Hazeldene is a single handed GP practice who provides care and treatment to approximately 3000 patients. The practice is situated in a deprived area of Portsmouth, with a high number of single parent families and patients in the 15 to 24 age groups than the national average.

Dr Mohamed Hazeldene is the only permanent GP, who is male and there are two regular male locum GPs employed to cover regular appointment sessions at the practice. A female locum GP is employed one afternoon a week and sees mainly female patients. The practice has a practice manager and a part time female practice nurse. There is a reception and administration team who support the clinical team. Each morning a phlebotomist visits the practice for half an hour to take blood for testing.

The practice holds a Personal Medical Services contract. The practice is open between 8am and 12.30pm and 2pm and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Appointments are from 9am to 12.30pm every morning and 2pm to 6.30pm daily. Extended hours surgeries are offered between 9am and 10.30am every Saturday, during which time reception is also staffed.

When the practice is closed patients are required to contact the NHS 111 service.

The practice operates from one location which is situated at:

15 Middle Park Way, Havant Hampshire, PO9 4AB.

Updated 3 November 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 4 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as inadequate. As a result of the inspection requirement notices were made and two warning notices were served. The practice was placed in special measures on 28 January 2016 and the full report is on our website.

We carried out a focused inspection on 11 February 2016 with regards to one of the warning notices. The warning notices related to regulation 12 safe care and treatment; there were shortfalls in managing risks to patients and staff when staff were working alone; and patients who received treatment away from the practice were not protected from harm. A compliance date had been set for 30 January 2016.

On the 11 February 2016 our key findings were that the warning notice had been met.

• The provider had not submitted an action plan detailing what measures they would be taking to achieve compliance in relation to the improvements needed at the practice.

• Arrangements were now in place to mitigate risks to staff who worked alone with patients and also minimise risk to patients. The lead GP reported that staff were no longer permitted to work in the building alone and we saw a lone working policy which confirmed this.

• The policy also covered arrangements if a member of staff was working away from the practice. There was an emergency medicines kit for use in anaphylactic reactions to medicines or vaccines if given away from the premises.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 28 January 2016

The provider was rated as good for caring, requires improvement for safe and responsive services and inadequate for effective and well led services. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

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

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

• Performance on diabetes indicators was low and had been for the past two years. Arrangements had only just been implemented to improve and monitor the outcomes for patients with this condition.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. However, not all these patients had a named GP, a personalised care plan or structured annual review to check that their health and care needs were being met.

Updated 28 January 2016

The provider was rated as good for caring, requires improvement for safe and responsive services and inadequate for effective and well led services. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice is rated as inadequate 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 accident and emergency attendances.

• Immunisation rates for the standard childhood immunisations were variable.

• There was limited evidence that children age 16 years or under were treated in an age appropriate manner. The practice told us they would refer them to other support services in the area for sexual health advice.

Updated 28 January 2016

The provider was rated as good for caring, requires improvement for safe and responsive services and inadequate for effective and well led services. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice is rated as inadequate for the care of older people.

• The practice offered a named GP and had care plans in place to prevent unnecessary admissions to hospital and provided end of life care to meet the needs of the older patients in its population.

• It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The practice had systems in place to keep all clinical staff up to date. Staff had access to guidelines from NICE and used this information to deliver care and treatment that met patients’ needs.

• The practice monitored that these guidelines were followed through risk assessments, audits and random sample checks of patient records, but these were not consistently completed.

Updated 28 January 2016

The provider was rated as good for caring, requires improvement for safe and responsive services and inadequate for effective and well led services. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice is rated as inadequate 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 offered Saturday morning appointments, student vaccines and telephone consultations.

• The practice offered online services as well as a range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs for this age group.

Updated 28 January 2016

The provider was rated as good for caring, requires improvement for safe and responsive services and inadequate for effective and well led services. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

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

• The practice had a total of 22 patients on their mental health register, but only 11 of these patients had a written and agreed care plan in place.

• The practice had patients with a learning disability registered with them, but did not carry out any formal reviews of these patients care needs. The reason given was that the patients did not keep their appointments.

• The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health and dementia.

• It 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 including MIND and SANE.

• 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 not received training on how to care for patients with mental health needs.

Updated 28 January 2016

The provider was rated as good for caring, requires improvement for safe and responsive services and inadequate for effective and well led services. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice is rated as inadequate for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• Most staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children, but were not trained to the required level. The lead GP had not received training to level three for safeguarding training, even though they were the nominated lead. However, one of the locum GPs had received relevant training to the appropriate level for children, but not for adult safeguarding. The other locum GP had received some training on safeguarding adults, but this related only to domestic violence situations.

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability.

• The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Most 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.

• There were limited attempts to engage patients who had a learning disability in their care and treatment.
• When patients had English as a second language staff told us they usually brought family members in to interpret. This did not promote confidentiality for the patients concerned.