Archived: Thurloe Street Private Practice

Updated 28 October 2019

Updated 28 October 2019

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. The percentage of patients at the practice with a long standing health condition (44.3%) was lower than the national average (54%). The percentage of patients with health related problems in daily life (34.9%) was also lower than the national average (48.8%).

The GPs and nurses were responsible for chronic disease management, and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. 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 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 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people. Children aged zero to four represented 5.6% of the practice population (national average 6.0%); children aged five to 14 represented 7.8% (national average 11.4%); and those aged under 18 years represented 10.1% (national average 14.8%). The income deprivation level affecting children was 8 compared to the national average of 22.5.

There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children on the child protection register. Urgent access appointments were available for children who were unwell. Immunisation rates for standard childhood immunisations were similar to or above the CCG averages. Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and we saw evidence to confirm this. Appointments were available outside of school hours.

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. The practice had a higher percentage of patients over the age of 75 (13.3% compared to the national average of 7.6%), and patients over the age of 85 (6.1% compared to national average of 2.2%). The income deprivation level affecting older people was 10 compared to the national average of 22.5.

Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. For example, performance for dementia related indicators was better than the CCG and national averages (practice 100%; CCG 90.5%; national 93.4%).

The practice offered personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, which included offering the shingles vaccination. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered longer appointments, home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. Patients were reviewed following discharge from hospital and referrals to support services were made.

The practice also provided medical support to patients in a 170 bed nursing home. A GP partner visited the home every weekday and a monthly ward round of each floor was carried out to ensure all patients were reviewed. The GPs worked with a multidisciplinary team to manage the care of these patients, and we received positive feedback about the practice from a manager at the nursing home.

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The age profile of patients at the practice was mainly those of working age, and the recently retired. The practice offered a range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs for this age group. The uptake for cervical screening was similar to the CCG average and lower than the national average. The practice had facilities to book appointments and order repeat prescriptions online. However, there was no website for NHS patients to access further information on the service.

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia, when necessary. The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Clinical staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs. However, performance for mental health related indicators was lower than the CCG and national averages (practice 57.2%; CCG 80.7%; national 90.4%).

Updated 1 October 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 housebound patients, carers, those with a learning disability, and patients receiving end of life care. Longer appointments were offered to patients with a learning disability, and these patients had received their annual health check. The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. They also had links with a hospice who offered palliative care and symptom control advice to patients. We were told vulnerable patients, including housebound patients, were reviewed following discharge from hospital. The practice 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.