You are here

Archived: Dolphins Practice Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dolphins Practice on 10 August 2016. 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. However, the use of blank computer prescription paper for use in printers was not tracked.

  • 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 there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. However, results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was lower than local and national average.

  • 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 improvements are:

  • Track and record the use of blank computer prescriptions.

  • Look at ways of to improve patients’ satisfaction with access to care and treatment to include phone access and opening hours.

  • Keep exception reporting rates under review in areas where they are higher than the local and national average. (Exception reporting is the removal of patients from QOF calculations where, for example, the patients are unable to attend a review meeting or certain medicines cannot be prescribed because of side effects).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

  • There was an effective system in place 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 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 in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.

  • Risks to patients who used services were assessed and the systems and processes to address these risks were implemented to ensure patients were kept safe. Although prescription pads were tracked and recorded, blank computer prescription paper for use in printers was not tracked in accordance with national guidelines.

  • Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been undertaken for administration staff who acted as chaperones. However the practice had undertaken a risk assessment in relation to this.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes were at or above average compared to the national average.
  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.
  • Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice in line with national and clinical commissioning group (CCG) averages for several aspects of care.

  • 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 easy to understand and accessible.

  • We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • Practice staff reviewed the needs of its local population and engaged with the NHS England Area Team and clinical commissioning group to secure improvements to services where these were identified.

  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patient’s satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was lower than local and national averages.

  • 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.

  • The practice offered information in braille on request.

  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

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 a number of policies and procedures to govern activity and held regular governance meetings.

  • There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour. The partners encouraged a culture of openness and honesty.

    The practice had systems in place for notifiable safety incidents and ensured this information was shared with staff to ensure appropriate action was taken

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The patient participation group was active was engaged well with the practice.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels.

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

The practice is rated as good 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 for diabetes related indicators was better than or similar to the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and national averages. For example, patients with diabetes who had a blood pressure reading in the preceding 12 months of 140/80mmHg or less was 87% which was better than the CCG average of 82% and the national average of 78%.

  • 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.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 13 October 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 people 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 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 83%, which was in line with the clinical commissioning group (CCG) average of 84% and the national average of 82%.

  • Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

  • There was a nurse led teenage health clinic offering advice on sexual health and lifestyle.

  • We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Older people

Good

Updated 13 October 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 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.

  • The practice offered weekly visits, by a named GP, to the care homes in the locality.

  • The practice offered longer appointments to patient over the age of 75.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 13 October 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.

  • Patients who preferred not to attend the practice in person were able to consult with their GP by email.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 13 October 2016

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

  • The practice performance for the management of patients diagnosed with dementia was similar to local and national averages

    ; 86% of these patients had received a face-to-face review within the preceding 12 months compared to the clinical commissioning group (CCG) average of 86% and the national average of 84%.

  • The practice performance for management of patients with poor mental health was similar to the local and national averages. For example, 95% of patients with severe and enduring mental health problems had a comprehensive care plan documented in their records within the last 12 months compared to the CCG average of 92% and the national average of 88%.

  • 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 13 October 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.