• Doctor
  • GP practice

Hazelwood Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

27 Parkfield Road, Coleshill, Birmingham, West Midlands, B46 3LD (01675) 463165

Provided and run by:
Hazelwood Group Practice

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 20 November to 2 December. Hazelwood Group Practice is a GP practice and delivers the service to 10,412 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 95% White, 1% Asian, 1% Black, 2% Mixed and 1% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the eighth decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

SAFE:

The service had a positive learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. However, our review of the clinical system found gaps in medicines that required monitoring such as high-risk medicines that required blood tests.

EFFECTIVE:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. However, care was not always based on latest evidence and good practice due to some medicine reviews not being effective

CARING:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service was working with staff for them to feel better supported in the workplace.

RESPONSIVE:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was accessible via various routes and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. We found the provider had implemented changes to improve access which was reflected in the National GP Patient Survey.

WELL-LED:

The inspection identified gaps in governance, including oversight of high-risk medicine prescribing, inconsistent patient safety alert audits, and underdeveloped quality outcome reviews. Improvements were needed in the management of emergency equipment and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. The practice was taking proactive action to implement improvements.

Overall, governance arrangements were not ensuring sufficient assurance or driving continuous improvement.

18 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hazelwood Group Practice

on 18 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Patients told us they were treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The practice reviewed the needs of the local population and made appropriate changes when necessary. For example, changes to the appointment system were made in order to make more same day appointments available.
  • Processes and procedures were in place to ensure patients were safe. This included an appropriate system for reporting and recording significant events. They were fully reviewed at every staff meeting.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care delivered in line with current guidelines. Staff had the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand. The practice received very few complaints from patients and reviewed complaints to ensure lessons learned were not repeated.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Keep copies of the Business Continuity Plan off-site.
  • The practice should review personnel files to ensure they contain the information required under current legislation.

  • The practice should review information available to patients to ensure it is accurate.

  • The practice should ensure easy to understand and accessible information about services is available for patients.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five patients. One patient told us, 'The nurse (X) is absolutely stunning. Any queries I can go to her. The GPs are lovely ' absolutely great!'

We spoke with four staff, two GP partners and three community professionals who had worked in collaboration with the practice. The community teams we spoke with identified that good working relationships existed between themselves and the practice.

We found effective communication and referral pathways existed between the practice and other healthcare professionals. Patients told us that their GP had supported them throughout the referral process. We saw that patients had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

Systems and guidance were in place to protect vulnerable adults and children. Staff were able to identify what to do should a safeguarding event take place.

We saw effective systems in place to assess and monitor complaints at the practice.