You are here

The Mansell Road Practice Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection December 2016 – 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 The Mansell Road Practice on 8 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. The full comprehensive report can be found by selecting the Mansell Road Practice ‘all reports’ link for on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection carried out on 13 March 2018. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014 as part of our inspection programme.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Maintain the arrangements for the safe keeping of prescriptions and follow the protocol for managing the monitoring of uncollected prescriptions.

  • Continue their efforts to make improvements on patient responses from the annual national GP patient survey relating to patient telephone access at the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

Effective

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

Caring

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 31 March 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 who had received an influenza immunisation was 97% which was above the national average of 94%.

  • Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

  • All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medicines needs were being met.

  • For those people 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 31 March 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 relatively high 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.

  • The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 78%, which was comparable to the national average of 82%.

  • Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

Older people

Good

Updated 31 March 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.

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

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 31 March 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.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 31 March 2016

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

  • 74% of people 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 of 84%.

  • The percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had received a comprehensive, agreed care plan was 92% which was above the national average of 88%.

  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

  • It 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.

  • It 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 people with mental health needs and dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 31 March 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.

  • It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.

  • It had told 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.