You are here

Portsdown Group Practice Good Also known as Cosham Park House

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focussed desk top inspection of Cosham Park Avenue Surgery on 9 October 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our previous inspection in January 2015 had found the practice was good overall. We found that the practice required improvement in the Safe domain due to breaches of regulations relating to safe delivery of services. The practice was good for Effective, Caring and Responsive and Well Led services.

We followed up on our inspection of January 2015 to check that action had been taken to meet the minimum standards. We have not revisited Cosham Park Surgery as part of this review because they were able to demonstrate that they were meeting the standards without the need for a visit.

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

  • Risk assessments related to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) were being carried out effectively and all cleaning procedures were robust enough to ensure control of infections in the practice.
  • 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

  • Lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the practice.

  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep people safe.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

Data showed patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was referenced and used routinely. Multidisciplinary working was also evidenced. Patient’s needs were assessed and care planned and delivered in line with current legislation which included assessments of a patient’s mental capacity. Staff were proactive in promoting good health and referrals were made to other agencies to ensure patients received the treatment they needed in a timely manner. Staff had annual appraisals and told us that their training needs were supported by senior staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for caring.

Patients told us that they were well informed about their care and treatment. We observed people being treated with dignity and respect. Staff provided privacy during all consultations and reception staff maintained patient privacy, dignity and confidentiality when registering or booking in patients.

All the patients we spoke with, and the comments we received were complimentary of the care and service staff provided.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for responsive.

The practice understood the needs of their patient population and this was reflected in the practice environment and systems used to meet some of the needs of their patients.

Patients told us they could always get an emergency appointment the same day and waiting time for routine appointments was satisfactory.

The practice obtained and acted on patients’ feedback. The practice learned from patient experiences, concerns and complaints to improve the quality of care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for well-led.

There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management and a culture of openness and honesty was encouraged.

The staff worked as a team and ensured that patients received a high standard of care. Staff had received induction, regular performance reviews and attended staff meetings.

Risks to the safe and effective delivery of services were assessed and addressed in a timely manner. A suitable business continuity plan was in place. The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity and regular governance meeting had taken place.

The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients and this had been acted upon. The practice had an active patient participation group.

Checks on specific services

Older people

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

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

Nationally reported data showed the practice had good outcomes for conditions commonly found amongst older patients. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older patients in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example in dementia and end of life care. The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients, including offering home visits and rapid access appointments for those with greater needs.

The practice also provided care to several care homes. One home was visited on a weekly basis by a GP. The GP regularly attended this home and the patients were well known to the GP, who felt that this made the GP more responsive to their needs. The GP had provided the management staff at the home with their personal mobile number and was happy to be called, even out of hours to deal with issues.

All older patients had a named GP. One of the GPs at the practice had a diploma in geriatric medicine and felt that the practice was well suited and managed the complex needs of the aging population.

The practice also interacted with the voluntary sector, community geriatricians and older patients mental health services.

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

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

Patients in this population group received safe, effective care which was based on national guidance. Care was tailored to patient needs, there was a multi-disciplinary input and was reviewed regularly.

The practice ran chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, diabetes and coronary heart disease clinics. The practice scored highly on the Quality and Outcomes Framework consistently and achieved full points in the last financial year. One of the GPs was especially proud of the diabetes service which had won an award from the Health Service Journal for the setting up of the service. All diabetic patients apart from those who were pregnant, had severe kidney disease or ulcers were managed in the practice. All patients were seen by a GP with a special interest in diabetes at least annually.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the population group of families, children and young people.

The practice followed national protocols and staff were aware of their responsibilities and the various legal requirements in the delivery of care to people in this population group. They worked with other health and social care providers to provide safe care.

Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations. Patients told us and we saw evidence that children and young people were treated in an appropriate way and recognised as individuals. We were provided with good examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors. The practice offered the full, recommended schedule of vaccinations for children. Recent uptake data showed 95.94% of the five year immunisations and 96% for the two year immunisations.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the population group of working age people (including those recently retired and students).

There was an appropriate system of receiving and responding to concerns and feedback from patients in this group who had found difficulty in getting appointments. The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening which reflected the needs of this population group.

The practice offered a variety of appointments (evening and weekend) and were currently taking part in the extension to extended hours and weekend working. The practice offered late evening surgery for pre booked appointments on Mondays from 6.30pm to 8.30pm.

The practice offered online booking for ease of access.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the population group whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

There was evidence of good multidisciplinary working with involvement of other health and social care workers. Staff were trained on safeguarding vulnerable adults and child protection.

The practice offered annual learning disability checks and were proactive in telephoning the patient to have this done.

Regular visits to local care homes with a dedicated GP for continuity of care, which was important for older/vulnerable patients.

The GPs had undertaken training to identify domestic abuse.

The practice promoted awareness of children who were on the child protection register, and had regular discussions and monitored relevant alerts on patient records.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 11 June 2015

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

The practice ensured that good quality care was provided for patients with mental health illnesses. The practice had a nominated lead who linked with other health professionals and community teams to ensure a safe, effective and co-ordinated service. The practice offered proactive, personalised care that met the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example in dementia. Data showed that this practice was in line with the national average score for dementia diagnosis in older patients.

Patients with mental health problems and learning disabilities had annual reviews. The practice either phoned these patients beforehand or text messaged them to remind them to attend. This had been effective as a recent learning disability annual review had picked up a new case of diabetes.