Hawthorn Medical Centre

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 10/2014 – Good)

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 carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hawthorn Medical Centre on 20 March 2018, as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

We saw three areas of outstanding practice:

• There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs of different groups of people and to deliver care in a way that met these needs and promoted equality. The practice introduced changes to the appointments booking service for wound care clinics. A telephone triaging system reduced the time from patients calling for an appointment, to receiving an appointment with the appropriate healthcare professional. Recent data reviewed at the time of inspection showed that average waiting times to see an appropriate healthcare professional were reduced from four days to around one-and-a-half days.
• Following changes to the appointments booking service, data on lower leg wound healing rates improved.

• The practice routinely referred patients with (or at risk of developing) Type II diabetes to a range of services to help monitor and improve their health, wellbeing and performance. Examples of this included a diabetic clinic with a local diabetic consultant, an education program and online software tools.

There are areas where the provider should make improvements.

• The provider should continue to make efforts to increase the programme coverage of women eligible to be screened for cervical cancer.
• The provider should continue to make efforts to improve patient access to appointments.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice