You are here

Mile Lane Surgery Good Also known as Inspire for Health

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Mile Lane Surgery on 3 May 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.
  • Patients consistently reported they were very happy with the service they received at Mile Lane Surgery.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

  • There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the practice.
  • When things went wrong patients received reasonable support, truthful information, and a written apology. They were told about any actions to improve processes to prevent the same thing happening again.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes were at or above average compared to the national average.
  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.
  • Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the national GP patient survey showed 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 saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • Practice staff reviewed the needs of its local population and engaged with the NHS England Area Team and Clinical Commissioning Group to secure improvements to services where these were identified.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for being well-led.

  • The practice had a clear vision and strategy to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients. Staff were clear about the vision and their responsibilities in relation to it.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity and held regular governance meetings.
  • There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour. The partners encouraged a culture of openness and honesty. The practice had systems in place for notifiable safety incidents and ensured this information was shared with staff to ensure appropriate action was taken.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The patient participation group was active.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels.
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

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.
  • 95% of patients on the diabetes register had a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months. This compared to a CCG average of 91% and a national average of 88%
  • Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
  • All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.
  • Patients with long term conditions who may be at increased risk of hospital admission were monitored.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as 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 patients who had a high number of A&E attendances.
  • Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.
  • 92% of women aged 25-64 had a cervical screening test in the preceding 5 years. This compared to a CCG average of 82% and a national average of 82%.
  • Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
  • We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.
  • Family planning services were available at the practice.
  • All staff were up to date with safeguarding training.
  • Appointments were available for immunisations to fit around school times.
  • Emergency on the day appointments were available for children.

Older people

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

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 patients in its population.
  • The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.
  • All patients over 75 years of age had a named GP.
  • The building was accessible for patients who have mobility problems.
  • Influenza, pneumococcal and shingles vaccination clinics were available to patients over 65 years of age.
  • All nursing home patients registered with the practice had a care plan in place and were visited weekly by a nominated clinician.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

  • The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students 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.
  • Appointments with the practice nurse and health care assistant were available from 8am.
  • Routine GP appointments were available to pre-book in advance from 8.30am.
  • NHS health checks were actively promoted and high risk patients identified and followed up.
  • Newly registered patients undergo a full NHS health check.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

  • 86% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months. This was comparable to the CCG average of 89% and the national average of 84%.
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.
  • The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.
  • The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
  • The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended A and E where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.
  • Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.
  • Longer appointment were provided as needed
  • Annual reviews were carried out with patients with dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 6 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

  • The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
  • The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.
  • The practice informed 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.
  • All staff were kept up to date with current safeguarding guidelines (adult and child).
  • Reception staff were alerted, via the IT system, to patients who failed to collect their prescriptions.
  • GPs worked with and referred to local services such as drug and alcohol services.
  • Patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to rearrange for a more convenient time.