You are here

Archived: Colliery Court Medical Group Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Simpson and Partners on 9 June 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. Information about safety was appropriately recorded and reviewed;
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed;
  • The practice was clean, hygienic and good infection control arrangements were in place;
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance;
  • The practice had scored well on clinical indicators within the Quality and Outcomes Framework. They achieved 93.2% for the year 2013/14, which was 0.9 percentage points below the CCG Average and 0.9 above the England Average.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and that they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment;
  • Information about the services provided and how to raise any concerns or complaints, was accessible and easy to understand;
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and urgent same-day access was available;
  • 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 the management team. The practice actively sought feedback from patients;
  • We found there was good staff morale and a learning culture in the practice.

However, there was areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Ensure that the serial numbers of blank prescriptions are recorded in accordance with national guidance to reduce the risk of theft or misuse.
  • Ensure there are warning signs to highlight the dangers presented by the storage of oxygen within the practice and to alert the emergency services, such as the fire brigade, in the event of a fire.
  • Undertake the recommended actions identified in the risk assessment, to protect against the risk of legionella.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Evidence showed the practice had managed safety incidents and information consistently over time and could demonstrate a safe track record over the long-term. The practice was open and transparent when there were near misses or when things went wrong. Lessons were learned and communicated widely to support improvement. The practice had regular weekly multidisciplinary meetings to discuss the safeguarding of vulnerable patients. Medicines were managed safely within the practice. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. The practice was clean and effective arrangements were in place to reduce the risk of infections. Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. There was an oxygen cylinder available to both practices in the building, which we saw was regularly serviced. However, there were no warning signs to highlight the dangers presented by the storage of oxygen within the practice and to alert the emergency services, such as the fire brigade, in the event of a fire. There were enough staff to keep patients safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services. Our findings at inspection showed that systems were in place to ensure that all clinicians were up to date with both National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and other locally agreed guidelines. We also saw evidence to confirm that these guidelines were positively influencing and improving practice and outcomes for patients. Nationally reported data showed that the practice was performing in line with local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and England averages. We found the practice was supporting people to live healthier lives through health promotion and prevention of ill health. There was good evidence of how the practice worked with other healthcare professionals, and involved patients in decisions about their care, to improve health outcomes.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services. Nationally reported data showed that patients rated the practice higher than other practices 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 to help patients understand the services available was easy to understand. We also saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services. They reviewed the needs of their local population and engaged with the NHS England Area Team and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to secure improvements to services where these were identified. Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed that the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for being well-led. They had a clear vision and strategy. Staff were clear about the vision and their responsibilities in relation to this. 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 were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which they acted on. Staff had received inductions, regular performance reviews and attended staff meetings and events.

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

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. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. These patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that 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.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 13 August 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 in line with local averages for all standard childhood immunisations. 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 and health visitors. Cervical screening rates for women aged 25-64 were slightly below the national average at 76.6%, compared to 81.9%. The practice planned to improve this rate by taking over management of the invite and appointment process themselves.

Older people

Good

Updated 13 August 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 their population and provided a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end-of-life care. Staff were responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 13 August 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 they 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.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 13 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with poor mental health (including patients with dementia). The practice held a register of patients experiencing poor mental health and there was evidence they carried out annual health checks for these patients. The practice regularly worked with the multi-disciplinary teams in case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations including MIND and SANE. They had systems in place to follow up patients who had attended Accident and Emergency (A&E).

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 13 August 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 those who misuse substances and those with a learning disability. They carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability. They offered longer appointments for those who required them.

They 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.