You are here

Wensum Valley Medical Practice West Earlham Health Centre Good

Reports


Review carried out on 10 June 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Wensum Valley Medical Practice West Earlham Health Centre on 10 June 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Wensum Valley Medical Practice West Earlham Health Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 13 March 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. At the previous Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in July 2017, the practice received an inadequate overall rating and was placed in special measures for a period of six months.

Our announced comprehensive inspection on 18 March 2018 was undertaken to ensure that improvements had been made following our inspections carried out in July 2017.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wensum Valley Medical Practice on 12 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement (safe and effective were rated as requires improvement, caring, responsive and well-led all rated as good).

We carried out an announced focused inspection on 18 July 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection. However, insufficient improvements had been made and we subsequently carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 24 July 2017 with a follow-up unannounced focused inspection on 31 July 2017 to assess the immediate actions taken. The practice were rated as inadequate overall (inadequate for safe and well led services and requires improvement for caring, effective and responsive services).

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wensum Valley Medical Practice

on 13 March 2018. This inspection was undertaken following the period of special measures and to confirm that the practice now met the standards in relation to the breaches in regulation (give breaches). Overall, the practice is now rated as good. The practice is no longer in special measures.

The full reports on the July 2017 and October 2016 inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wensum Valley Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice showed evidence that they had been responsive to the findings of the previous report and had made significant improvements. The clinical leadership had been improved, all partners had been involved and practice staff we spoke with told us that they had been included in the development of the action plan and had been fully engaged in the changes made. The clinical commissioning group (CCG) had been engaged with and had supported the practice where appropriate. The practice had employed a new practice manager who had been fully in post since September 2017. The practice had also engaged a new partner and full time pharmacist, both of whom commence their posts on 1 April 2018.
  • The practice was clear on the improvements that had been achieved or were in process or being embedded. They had undertaken a significant number of audits to ensure the changes they had made had been effective.
  • The practice was aware of their population needs and the levels of deprivation that affected them. All staff had received training to become a dementia friendly practice.
  • We found the system in place for reporting and recording significant events and complaints had been improved, and embedded. Risk assessments had been undertaken in a systematic and organised way.
  • The practice had implemented a suite of practice specific policies and procedures which staff had read and were using. A new practice intranet system was in place and this was in the process of being fully populated.
  • The system in place to deal with and monitor patient safety alerts had been reviewed and improved, ensuring that patients were appropriately monitored.
  • The process to manage medicines prescribed to patients had been improved. A fully electronic system giving a clear audit trail of changes and clinical oversight had been implemented.
  • An effective system to manage correspondence had been implemented. Clear polices and protocols had been embedded to ensure that GPs saw all correspondence that required a clinical view.
  • A fully electronic system had been introduced to ensure that staff were employed safely and that training requirements were met. We found that all staff had received the training deemed mandatory by the practice.
  • Clinical oversight had been introduced to ensure that home visits were managed safely and in a timely manner.
  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework showed patient outcomes in many areas were mixed with areas above, in line, or below the national averages. Some exception reporting was above the national averages. To ensure this was managed well, the practice had increased clinical oversight into reviewing, improving, and monitoring their performance.
  • The practice had increased the use of SMS messages to patients including where possible in the patients first language.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey, published in July 2017, showed the practice was in line with or below local and national averages for many aspects of care.
  • Since the last inspection the practice had engaged with patients and a patient participation group had been formed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 18, 24 and 31 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wensum Valley Medical Practice on 12 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement (safe and effective were rated as requires improvement, caring, responsive and well-led all rated as good). We carried out an announced focused inspection on 18 July 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection. However, insufficient improvements had been made and we subsequently carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 24 July 2017 with a follow-up unannounced focused inspection on 31 July 2017 to assess the immediate actions taken.

The full comprehensive report on the October 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Wensum Valley Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and to the new concerns identified from the inspections on 18, 24 and 31 July.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice was aware of their population needs and the levels of deprivation that affected them.

  • The practice served an area where deprivation was one of the highest in Norwich. Public Health England 2015 – 2016 data showed

    the deprivation affecting children scored 39% compared to the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) figure of 23% and the national figure of 20%.

  • The practice lacked clinical leadership to ensure it delivered high quality and safe care.

  • We found the system in place for reporting and recording significant events and complaints was not effective enough to ensure that all incidents had been recorded, learning from events was shared effectively with the practice team or changes made to improve the service. The opportunities to make early interventions to encourage improvement were missed.

  • The patients and practice staff were at risk of harm, the practice had not undertaken sufficient risk assessments to ensure they would be kept safe. For example the practice was not able to evidence they had undertaken risk assessments for fire or health and safety. The practice took immediate action to address these issues.

  • The systems and process to manage infection prevention and control needed to be improved.

  • The system in place to deal with and monitor patient safety alerts needed to be improved, as they did not have a system to ensure alerts were recorded for future monitoring.

  • The practice had a medicine review system in place to support patients who take medicines that require monitoring. However, we identified the medical records did not evidence which GP had reviewed the medicines and authorised that more prescriptions could be issued.

  • Patients were at risk of harm because the practice system to ensure GPs saw all relevant correspondence was not effective.

  • We saw doctors and nurses were appropriately registered and they had medical indemnity in place. However, the practice did not have systems and processes in place to easily monitor these requirements.

  • During our inspection we saw generic policies and procedures were in place. These policies had not been reviewed or amended to be practice specific.

  • Not all practice staff had received annual appraisals; nursing staff including those with a prescribing qualification had limited formalised clinical supervision with GPs and did not have one to one peer reviews. Some staff told us they felt isolated and that the communication within the practice could be improved.

  • We found there was not always a consistent approach to the allocation of home visits by non-clinical staff.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework showed patient outcomes in many areas were below national averages. The practice exception reporting for 2015-2016 was higher than the local or national averages. The practice had discussed the high exception reporting as a team and had put some actions in place. However, there was no system in place to monitor any improvements to ensure they had been effective.

  • Results from the national GP patient survey, published in July 2017, showed the practice was in line with or below local and national averages for many aspects of care. The practice gathered regular feedback from patients.

  • Patients we spoke with said they did not find it easy to make an appointment with a named GP but urgent appointments were usually available.

  • The practice training log was not up to date and the practice was not able to evidence that all staff had received training they deemed mandatory, for example safeguarding training.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • The practice supported and wrote regular articles for a

    local charity, the Henderson Trust, who produce a regular newsletter. For example, the practice wrote an article to encourage patients with pulmonary disorders such as asthma to attend their regular follow up appointments and avoid having to attend Accident and Emergency.

  • The practice worked with the local schools to encourage healthy lifestyles. Children from a nearby school had designed posters for a notice board in the waiting area.

  • The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the practice should make improvements are:

  • Complete all staff occupational health assessments to ensure the immunisation status of staff is recorded, or risk assessed.

  • Continue to explore ways to engage effectively with patients.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 12 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wensum Valley Medical Centre in Norwich on 12 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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 generally well managed. Improvement was needed in several areas, for example the record keeping on the cleaning of clinical equipment and the recording of staff immunisation status’.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice had participated in end of life cooperative working with a local hospice for the evaluation and education of non-clinical staff.
  • 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 practice had shared its processes for dealing suspect non accidental bruising in babies with the local safeguarding team – who had commented this would be used for training GPs across Norfolk.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure that the immunisation status of staff is recorded or, where deemed not required, risk assessed.
  • Continue to explore ways to encourage patients to attend for appointments and engage with national screening programmes for breast and bowel cancer
  • Embed and monitor the new practice policies and procedures and ensure that staff can access and use them.
  • Ensure that medicine reviews (including those for high risk medicines) are undertaken using a uniform approach.
  • Ensure that effective records on the cleaning of clinical equipment are in place.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 29 January 2014

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with 14 people who were using the service and with five relatives who were accompanying people who were attending the surgery. We also accompanied a GP when they visited and provided treatment to a person in their own home.

We found that care had been planned as part of an individual, person focused approach and was provided in a very person centred manner. We saw this when we observed treatment being given and when nurses and doctors greeted people and spoke to them.

We found that medical records were consistently detailed and included other health and social care professional�s notes, which showed that strong collaborative working arrangements had been used to provide a person centred approach.

People were kept safe from abuse by well trained staff, who had a special focus in safeguarding children. Policies and procedures, and staff knowledge and training, assured us that children and vulnerable adults were appropriately protected from abuse because the provider had taken suitable action.

The premises were purposely designed for the collective activities of the nurse and GPs and had adequate working space for administrative staff. We saw that the premises were clean and had been well maintained.