You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Hastings House Medical Centre on 14 April 2015. Overall the practice is rated as Good. Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for the older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people living in vulnerable circumstances, and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had comprehensive systems for monitoring and maintaining the safety of the practice and the care and treatment they provided to their patients.
  • 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 maximised.
  • The practice was proactive in helping people with long term conditions to manage their health and had arrangements in place to make sure their health was monitored regularly.
  • The practice was clean and hygienic and had arrangements for reducing the risks from healthcare associated infections.
  • The practice had a well-established and well trained team who had expertise and experience in a wide range of health conditions.
  • Patients felt that they were treated with dignity and respect. They felt that their GP listened to them and treated them as individuals.
  • The practice was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. The practice provided opportunities for the staff team to learn from significant events and was committed to providing a safe service. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. The practice assessed risks to patients and managed these well. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services. Data showed patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality. Patients’ care and treatment took account of guidelines issued by the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence (NICE). Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation. The practice was proactive in the care and treatment provided for patients with long term conditions and regularly audited areas of clinical practice. There was evidence that the practice worked in partnership with other health professionals. Staff received training appropriate to their roles and the practice supported and encouraged their continued learning and development.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services. Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and treatment decisions. Accessible information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them. We saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect and were aware of the importance of confidentiality. The practice provided advice, support and information to patients, particularly those with long term conditions and to families following bereavement.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services. The practice was aware of the needs of their local population and engaged with the NHS England Area Team (NHSE) and South Warwickshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to secure service improvements where these were identified. Patients reported good access to the practice and said that urgent appointments were available the same day. The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. There was a clear complaints system with evidence demonstrating that the practice responded quickly to issues raised. The practice had a positive approach to using complaints and concerns to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for being well-led. The practice had a clear vision with quality and safety as a high priority. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff and teams worked together across all roles. Governance and performance management arrangements had been introduced and dates set for them to be reviewed. They took account of current models of best practice. Staff had received inductions, regular performance reviews and attended staff meetings and events. The practice proactively sought feedback from patients and had an active patient participation group (PPG).

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

This practice is rated as good for the care of patients with long term conditions, for example asthma, arthritis and diabetes. The practice had effective arrangements for making sure that patients with long term conditions were invited to the practice for annual reviews of their health. Care plans were in place for the most vulnerable patients. Clinics were held for a range of long term conditions, including diabetes, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) which is a lung disease. Members of the GP and prescribing practice nurses (who could issue prescriptions) ran these clinics. Patients whose health prevented them from being able to attend the surgery received the same service from one of the practice nurses as home visits were arranged. Patients told us they were seen regularly to help them manage their health. When patients with long-term conditions required routine medical appointments, the practice tried to allocate appointments to a regular GP on each occasion.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

This practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people. The practice held weekly childhood vaccination clinics and its rates of immunisation for children was above average for the South Warwickshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). Weekly antenatal and baby and children’s clinics were held and the practice demonstrated it had a close working relationship with the local midwives and health visitor teams. In addition, a GP gave regular post-natal talks at a local children’s centre. The practice provided cervical screening and a family planning service.

Older people

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

This practice is rated as good for the care of older patients. Patients over the age of 75 had a named GP and were included on the practice’s avoiding unplanned admissions list to alert the team to patients who may be more vulnerable. Care plans were also in place for the most vulnerable patients, including those within the local care homes served by the practice. GPs also carried out regular ‘rounds’ and medicines reviews within each nursing home. GPs and practice nurses carried out visits to patients’ homes if they were unable to travel to the practice for appointments and one of the practice nurses specialised in home visits for older patients. Some of these visits were carried out jointly with the district nursing team when appropriate. For patients who lived over one mile away from the practice, the dispensary was able to deliver medicines to their home. The practice was involved with an over 75’s project in conjunction with Age UK, for the practice or organisation (depending on the patient need) to visit the homes of the most vulnerable elderly people in order to provide additional support where possible.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

This practice is rated as good for the care of working age patients, recently retired people and students. The practice provided extended opening hours until 9pm on Mondays and telephone consultations for patients unable to visit the practice during the day. NHS health checks were carried out for patients aged 40-75. The practice provided patients who smoked with smoking cessation support.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

This practice is rated as good for the care of patients experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The practice had a register of patients at the practice with mental health support and care needs and invited them for annual health checks. Care plans were in place for these patients. Staff described close working relationships with the community mental health team, community psychiatric nurse and social services staff. These teams worked with the practice to identify patients’ needs and to provide patients with counselling, support and information. The practice carried out dementia screening.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

This practice is rated as good for the care of patients living in vulnerable circumstances. Patients had a named GP and regular reviews were carried out in conjunction with community nurses and matrons. One of the GPs was the lead for learning disability (LD) care at the practice and the practice had an LD register. All patients with learning disabilities were invited to attend for an annual health check. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and GPs told us how alerts were placed on the records of potentially vulnerable patients. The practice had a close working relationship with social services. When patients living in vulnerable circumstances required routine medical appointments, the practice tried to allocate appointments to a regular GP on each occasion. The practice allowed travellers to register as patients, however at the time of our inspection there were none on the patient list.