You are here

Ashby Turn Primary Care Partners Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 May 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Ashby Turn Primary Care Partners on 2 February 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.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • 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.
  • 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. This means providers must be open and transparent with service users about their care and treatment, including when it goes wrong.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 May 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

  • There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • When there were unintended or unexpected safety incidents, patients received reasonable support, truthful information, a verbal and written apology. Patients 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 were assessed and well managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 May 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework showed patient outcomes were similar to average for the locality and compared to the national average.
  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Audits had been carried out and we saw evidence that audits were driving improvement in performance to improve patient outcomes.
  • 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 multidisciplinary teams to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 May 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed patients rated the practice similar to others 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.
  • We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.
  • The practice has a register of carers and there was information available to help patients understand the services available to them at the practice or information about support groups.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 May 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • Patients said there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day however availability of an appointment with a named GP was lower than average (35% at the practice compared to the CCG Average of 51% and the national average of 60%).
  • 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 the practice responded to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 May 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 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 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 knowing about 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.
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 19 May 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.
  • 75% of patients on the diabetes register had a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months compared to the national average 88%.
  • 99% of patients with diabetes, on the register, had influenza immunisation in the preceding 1 August to 31 March (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) compared to the national average 94%
  • Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
  • All these patients had a named GP and an 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 19 May 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 similar to the national averages for all standard childhood immunisations.
  • 68% of patients diagnosed with asthma, on the register, had an asthma review in the last 12 months compared to the national average of 75%
  • 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 87% which was comparable to the national average of 82%.
  • Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

Older people

Good

Updated 19 May 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.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 19 May 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 reflected the needs for this age group.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 19 May 2016

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

  • 76% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is comparable to the national average of 84%
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.
  • 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 19 May 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 and carried out annual health checks for patients with a learning disability.
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.
  • 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.