Archived: The Liphook and Liss Surgery

Updated 9 January 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a focused desktop inspection of The Liphook and Liss Surgery in October 2016 to assess whether the practice had made the improvements in providing safe care and services.

We had previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Liphook and Liss Surgery on 21 July 2015 when we rated the practice as good overall. The practice was rated as good for being effective, caring, responsive and well-led and requires improvement for providing safe care. This was because we found that risks to patients and staff in relation to fire safety had not been fully assessed, and there was no record of fire safety training for staff. Following our last inspection we asked the provider to send a report of the changes they would make to comply with the regulations they were not meeting at that time.

The practice was able to demonstrate that they were meeting the standards for safe care and is now rated as good for providing safe care. The overall rating for the practice remains as good.

This report should be read in conjunction with the full inspection report.

Our key findings across the areas we inspected in October 2016 were as follows:

• There were full risk assessments in place for the management of fire safety at both branches of the practice, and staff had received appropriate training in relation to fire safety.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 22 October 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. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medicine needs were being met. There was a pathway of care for patients provided by healthcare assistants and nurses with support and oversight from GPs. For those patients with the most complex needs there was liaison with other relevant health and care professionals and specialist teams to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 22 October 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 or who were at risk. Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals. 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 22 October 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. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. The practice GPs worked on a rota with another practice to provide daily ward rounds in a care home and community hospital for patients recently discharged from an acute hospital. The practice delivered medicines to housebound patients.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of this group of patients 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 such as; booking appointments and ordering of prescriptions. Telephone consultations were available each day which could negate the need for patients to visit the practice. The practice provided a full range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs of this population group.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). 92.5% of people experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check in the preceding 12 months. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. The practice had produced comprehensive, agreed care plans for over 94% of their patients experiencing poor mental health.

The practice had sign posted patients experiencing poor mental health to appropriate services and had supported them in accessing those services.

There had been a recent information evening organised collaboratively between the practice and the patient participation group on the subject of dementia. Speakers included a dementia consultant and a representative of the Alzheimer’s Society.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and data for the year ending March 2015 showed that 89% of patients with a learning disability had received an annual health review. The practice supported patients in two local care homes for people with learning difficulties. Care plans were in place for these patients and GPs visited when requested to do so.

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