Archived: B Biswas and P Ray

Updated 25 June 2015

Blundell Park Surgery is situated on Grimsby Road, Cleethorpes. The registered patient list size is 2431. Within this there are 154 patients aged 0 to 5 years, 404 patients aged six to 18 years, 1557 patients aged 18 to 65 years, 418 patients aged over 65, out of which 180 are over 75 years. The practice is a partnership and has a female and a male GP. There are practice nurses and health care assistants. The practice has a practice manager, receptionists and administration staff.

A full range of general practice services are provided and there is access to services such as; physiotherapy, podiatry, psychology, a dietician and an outreach consultant psychiatric clinic.

The practice has a general medical services (GMS) Contract under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 2006. The NHS Commissioning Board and the practice enter into a general medical services contract under which the practice is to provide primary medical services and other services in accordance with the provisions of the Contract.

When the practice is closed an answerphone directs patients to telephone another number for out of hours care.

Updated 25 June 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Blundell Park Surgery on 6 January 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.

• 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

• The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. A business plan was in place, was monitored and regularly reviewed and discussed with all staff. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff with evidence of team working across all roles.

• The practice actively sought the opinions of staff and patients, working with a well-established patient participation group (PPG).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 25 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long term conditions. Emergency processes were in place and referrals made for patients in this group that had a sudden deterioration in health. When needed, longer appointments and home visits were available. All these patients had a named GP and structured annual reviews to check their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 25 June 2015

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. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 25 June 2015

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

Updated 25 June 2015

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 reflected the needs for this age group.

Updated 25 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). 100% of people experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with 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. It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency (A&E) where they may have been experiencing poor mental health. Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 25 June 2015

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. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and 95% of these patients had received a follow-up. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told 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.