Archived: Pauline Lai Chung Fong Also known as Queens Park Surgery

Updated 17 February 2017

Pauline Lai Chung Fong also known as Queens Park Surgery is situated at Queens Park Health Centre, Dart Street, London, W10 4LD which it shares with two other GP practices as well as community services. The practice provides NHS primary care services through a General Medical Services (GMS) contract to approximatey 1,550 people living in the local area. The practice belongs to the NHS West London Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

The practice has 334 patients between 17 and 64 years of age and 391 patients with a long-term condition, there are 248 patients over 65 years of age. The ethnicity a mixture of Arabic, White Caucasian, Afro-Caribbean and Middle Eastern. The patient population has a higher than average level of deprivation (people living in more deprived areas tend to have greater need for health services).

​ The practice’s opening hours are Monday to Friday 9am to 6pm with the exception of Thursday where the practice closes at 1pm. Appointments are from 9am to 1pm daily and 4pm to 6pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Between 1pm and 4pm and at weekends the practice’s telephone diverts patients to the local out of hours service.

The practice team consists of a single handed GP (nine sessions per week), two part time managers (20 hours per week each), a healthcare assistant (nine hours per week) and three part time receptionists. The practice have a nursing post which is currently vacant.

Services provided include; chronic disease management, cervical screening, vaccinations & immunisations and travel advice. The practice also provide out of hospital services including phlebotomy, spirometry, wound care and anticoagulation.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Updated 17 February 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Pauline Lai Chung Fong also known as Queens Park Surgery on 10 January 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 an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients 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 and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Improve Quality and Outcomes Framework performance for chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and mental health related indicators to bring in line with local and national averages.
• Consider ways to improve cervical smear uptake, bowel cancer screening rates, and childhood immunisation rates for all standard immunisations.
• Develop a strategy and business plan to deliver the practice vision.
• Improve patient satisfaction with the service based on feedback.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 17 February 2017

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

• Patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority for support from the GP.
• Performance for diabetes related indicators was 93% compared to the CCG average of 84% and the national average of 90% with an exception rate of 10%.
• 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.

Updated 17 February 2017

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 people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Childhood immunisation rates were mixed when compared to CCG/national averages.
• 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.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 62%, which was below to the CCG average of 75% and the national average of 82%. However, exception reporting was 5% which was lower than the CCG and national average of 7%.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

Updated 17 February 2017

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 people in its population.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 17 February 2017

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.

Updated 17 February 2017

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

• 100% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was above the CCG average of 84% and the national average of 84% with an exception rate of 10%.
• Performance for mental health related indicators was 65% compared to the CCG average of 89% and the national average of 93% with an exception rate of 7%.
• 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.

Updated 17 February 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.
• 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.