- GP practice
Oakleaf Medical Practice
All Inspections
13 December 2016
During a routine inspection
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Oakleaf Medical Practice on 30 March 2016. During that inspection we found that an effective system was not in place for recording, handling and responding to complaints from people using the service or acting on their behalf. There was also limited information to show that t he learning points from complaints were shared with the staff team, to ensure that appropriate improvements are made.
In view of the above the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing responsive services.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for on our website at Oakleaf Medical Practice www.cqc.org.uk.
We undertook a desk based review on 13 December 2016 to check that the provider had completed the required action, and now met the legal requirement in relation to Regulation 16: Receiving and acting on complaints. We did not visit the practice as part of this inspection. This report covers our findings in relation to the requirement.
This inspection found that the provider had taken appropriate action to meet the legal requirement.
The provider had established a system to ensure:
- Complaints are effectively recorded, handled and responded to in a timely and transparent way in line with the practice’s policy.
- Complaints are reviewed and monitored to identify trends and areas of risks that need to be addressed.
- The learning points from complaints are shared with the staff team to ensure that appropriate improvements are made.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
30 March 2016
During a routine inspection
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Oakleaf Medical Practice on 30 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
- Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
- Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
- Most patients we spoke with told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
- The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example, the practice was a member of the Birmingham Integrated General Practice (BIG Practice) in order to share good practice and to be able to offer enhanced services.
- The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet patients’ needs. For example, the practice had collaborated with specialist burial services which targeted the special needs of its majority practice patient population.
- The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand. For example, we saw that there was an information leaflet available in the Romanian, Urdu and Somalian language as there were a large number of these patients on the practice list.
- Patients did not always find it easy to make an appointment with a named GP although urgent appointments were usually available the same day.
- The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
- The practice had carried out clinical audits to improve and maintain patient outcomes.
- There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice had sought feedback from staff and patients.
We saw some areas of outstanding practice including:
- We saw evidence to demonstrate that the practice had carried out a comprehensive analysis of its patient population profile and developed targeted services and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence. For example, weekly ‘Romanian Open Surgeries’ with interpreters to accommodate the growing Romanian population.
- The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they met patients’ needs. For example, the practice demonstrated collaboration with a local funeral service that was sensitive to the majority patient population which required prompt burials. This had also allowed patients more effective end-of-life care planning and more involvement in key decisions together with family members.
- The practice had participated in a large number of outreach projects. It had worked in partnership with the local police teams, neighbourhood watch, faith groups and others to collaboratively inform patients about health and social care issues and reduce barriers to access.
However, there was an area where the provider must make improvement:
-
Ensure that there is an effective system to record, handle and respond to complaints and that evidence is always available to demonstrate that the provider had responded to the complaints made.
In addition the provider should:
-
Improve the effective management of long-term conditions.
-
Review the practice processes to ensure completion and future monitoring of infection control action plans.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice