You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Perry Park Medical Centre on 8 September 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all of the areas inspected were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were discussed and where possible acted on.
  • Practice staff were proactive in utilising methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example, reviewing patients who had attended the A&E department at the local hospital and providing them with guidance about alternative measures.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
  • Practice staff worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet people’s needs.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the Patient Participation Group (PPG).
  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff with evidence of strong team working across all roles.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 November 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. Lessons were learned and communicated widely to support improvement. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. Risks to patients were assessed, well managed communicated widely enough to support improvement.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services. Data showed most patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality. Staff referred to guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and used it routinely. Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation. This included assessing capacity and promoting good health. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and requests for further training had been acknowledged and acted on. Arrangements were in place for staff appraisals and personal development plans. Staff worked with multidisciplinary teams to promote continuity of care.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services. Data showed that patients rated the practice higher than 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. Information for patients about the services available was easy to understand and accessible. We also saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

The practice is rated good for providing responsive services. It reviewed the needs of its local population and engaged with the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to secure improvements to services where these were identified. Services were planned and delivered to take into account the needs of different patient groups. The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and evidence showed that the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for being well-led. It had a clear vision and strategy. Staff were clear about responsibilities and participated in the on-going improvements. There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice policies and procedures to govern its activity and held regular governance meetings. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk. Senior staff proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) was active and felt they positive contributions for the benefit of patients.

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 5 November 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 regular structured reviews to check that their health and medication needs were being met. For patients with complex needs the GPs worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

The practice is rated 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 high for all standard childhood immunisations. 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. Appointments were available outside of school hours.

Older people

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

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 and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. The practice had regular contact with district nurses and participated in meetings with other healthcare professionals to discuss any concerns and patient’s care needs.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of this population group 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 reflects the needs for this age group. Extended hours were available until 7.45pm each Monday to improve patient access.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 5 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). All patients experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. Staff informed patients about how to access support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs and dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 5 November 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 with a learning disability. Practice staff offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability and all of these patients had received annual health checks. Practice staff regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children and were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.