Archived: Hasland Medical Centre

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hasland Medical Centre on 25 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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, and we saw evidence that learning was applied from events to enhance patient care and safety.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The partners and practice manager worked collaboratively with other local GP practices and made an active contribution to Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) workstreams.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment, and clinicians had lead areas of responsibility.
• Feedback from patients about their care was positive. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Most patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a GP, and usually this was with a GP of their choice. Routine appointments could usually be booked within one week, and demand for appointments was actively monitored so that additional consultations could be made available in periods of high demand. Urgent appointments were available the same day.

• The practice used clinical audits to review patient care and took action to improve services as a result.

• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• The practice worked effectively with the wider multi-disciplinary team to plan and deliver high quality and responsive care to keep vulnerable patients safe.
• The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) and worked with them to review and improve services for patients.
• The practice made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients. For example, further to comments made on the NHS Choices website regarding telephone access, an additional phone line had been installed.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.

We saw three areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice reviewed all deaths to ensure care had been delivered appropriately and to consider any learning points. This included sharing learning with other providers including care homes. For example, if the patient had remained in their preferred place of care; if medicines had been prescribed to anticipate coping with pain at short notice; and checking if follow-up bereavement support been offered.

• The practice had adapted a computer template used for childhood vaccinations to ensure this could not be accessed until the child reached the required age for the immunisation. This prevented vaccinations being administered too early, and had been implemented as a learning point from a significant event.
• The practice had ensured the requirements of vulnerable patients had been fully assessed and adapted to meet their individual needs comprehensively. For example, all patients with a learning disability had received an annual health check, and had a personal care plan in place. The practice provided information in a format that patients with a learning disability would understand such as letters with picture prompts, and a DVD aimed to help them to understand the cervical screening process.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice