You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Grove Road Surgery on 12 April 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.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure that cleaning schedules specify and include desk top equipment.

  • Ensure that a system is implemented to record cleaning of specialist equipment.

  • Ensure that a system of stock management is implemented in relation to sterile supplies.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 (CCG) to secure improvements to services where these were identified. One partner represented the practice at CCG meetings and the practice was working closely with the CCG in relation to the response to the acute health care needs of those patients over the age of 75. This work had led to a system where home visits were made within two hours of the request or extended appointments were offered to those patients well enough to attend the surgery. The practice manager attended and engaged with the CCG cluster meetings to explore new pathways and share best practice.
  • The practice was very focused on enabling patients to see or speak to a named GP promoting continuity of care.
  • Urgent appointments were available on 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 22 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

Older people

Good

Updated 22 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 people in its population.

  • The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits, extended and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

  • The practice had employed two paramedic practitioners to provide enhanced care to older and vulnerable patients in their own homes.

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 22 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.
  • The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, whose last measured total cholesterol (measured within the preceding 12 months) was 5 mmol/l or less (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) was 89.% compared to the national average of 81%
  • The percentage of patients on the diabetes register, with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) was 91% compared to the 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.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 22 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 people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were comparable to local and national averages 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.
  • The percentage of women aged 25-64 whose notes recorded that a cervical screening test had been performed in the preceding 5 years was 85% compared to the 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 and health visitors.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 22 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.
  • The practice offered telephone appointments and text reminders for appointments.
  • The practice offered flexible appointment times for those patients who were unable to attend during the usual clinic times.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 22 June 2016

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.
  • 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.
  • The practice had employed two paramedic practitioners to provide enhanced care for vulnerable and older patients in their own homes.
  • 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.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 22 June 2016

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

  • 79% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was comparable to the national average.
  • The percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in their record, in the preceding 12 months (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) was 92% compared to the national average of 88%.
  • 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 accident and emergency 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.