You are here

Thorpe Road Surgery Good Also known as Dr M Bishop and Dr T Shah

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Thorpe Road Surgery on 2 March 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 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group (PPG). For example, the PPG had developed a comprehensive reference guide in a variety of different languages which was readily available to patients in the waiting area. This included a range of health education materials to support patients who were being referred to secondary care. It also had a ‘jargon buster’, which was especially useful for patients who did not speak English as a first language.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 April 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 there were unintended or unexpected safety incidents, patients received reasonable support, truthful information, a verbal and 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 7 April 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework showed patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality and 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 multidisciplinary teams to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Data from the National GP Patient Survey published in January 2016 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 7 April 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. For example, a dietician and counsellor held weekly clinics in the practice.
  • 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 implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the PPG. For example, the PPG had developed a comprehensive reference guide in a variety of different languages which was readily available to patients in the waiting area. This included a range of health education materials to support patients who were being referred to secondary care. It also had a ‘jargon buster’, which was especially useful for patients who did not speak English as a first language.
  • 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 7 April 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 this.
  • 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 knowing about 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 PPG was proactive in seeking patient feedback and undertook annual patient satisfaction surveys.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels.
Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 7 April 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 practice used the information collected for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) to monitor outcomes for patients (QOF is a system intended to improve the quality of general practice and reward good practice). Data from 2014/2015 showed that performance for diabetes related indicators was 82.7%, which was below the CCG average by 6.8% and below the national average by 6.5%. However, the practice had a very low level of exception reporting (exception reporting is the removal of patients from QOF calculations where, for example, the patients are unable to attend a review meeting or certain medicines cannot be prescribed because of side effects).
  • The practice had held education evenings for patients with long-term conditions.
  • Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
  • All of 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 7 April 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, and we saw evidence to confirm this.
  • The practice provided contraceptive and sexual health advice.
  • 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.

Older people

Good

Updated 7 April 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 and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.
  • Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients for conditions commonly found in older people, including rheumatoid arthritis and heart failure, were above local and national averages.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 7 April 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.
  • Practice staff carried out NHS health checks for patients between the ages of 40 and 74 years. The practice was able to refer patients to a health trainer to encourage lifestyle changes.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

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

  • 83% 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/ worse than the national average.
  • 88% of patients experiencing poor mental health had a comprehensive care plan, which was above the CCG and national averages.
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people 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.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 7 April 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 multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.
  • The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Information was readily available in a variety of different languages.
  • 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.