Parson Drove Surgery

Updated 9 January 2017

Parson Drove Surgery is a purpose built practice situated in Parson Drove, Cambridgeshire. The practice provides services for approximately 6,300 patients over a six to eight mile radius of the village of Parson Drove, which crosses the border into South Lincolnshire. It holds a Personal Medical Services contract with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG.

According to information taken from Public Health England, the patient population has an age profile comparable to the practice average across England, with a lower than average number of patients aged between 20 and 39. The practice is in an area with a mixed level of socio-economic deprivation.

The practice team consists of three male GP partners (clinicians who hold managerial and financial responsibility for the practice), a female GP locum, a practice manager, an advanced nurse practitioner, three practice nurses and three healthcare assistants. It also has teams of reception, administration and secretarial staff.

Parson Drove Surgery is open from Monday to Friday. It offers appointments from 9am to 12pm and 4pm to 8pm on Mondays, 9am to 12pm and 4pm to 6pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and 9am to 12pm on Wednesdays. Out of hours care is provided by the NHS 111 service.

Updated 9 January 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Parson Drove Surgery on 7 June 2016. At this time we noted that improvement was required to strengthen the recall system for medication reviews for patients who were prescribed medicines that required specific monitoring.

After the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to ensuring effective processes were in place.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

The overall rating for the practice is good. You can read our previous report by selecting the ‘all reports' link for on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 3 August 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 75%, which was below the CCG average by 15% and the national average by 14%. Exception reporting for diabetes related indicators was 4%, which was lower than the CCG average of 13% and the national average of 11% (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).
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
• Patients with complex needs 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.
• Regular clinics at the practice included smoking cessation, continence and dietetic support.

Updated 3 August 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 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 percentage of women aged 25-64 whose notes recorded that a cervical screening test had been performed in the preceding 5 years was 80%, which was in line with the local and 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.

Updated 3 August 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.
• The practice triaged all home visit requests to facilitate earlier visits where hospital admission may be an outcome.
• 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.

Updated 3 August 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.
• An in-house health trainer carried out NHS health checks for patients between the ages of 40 and 74 years.
• Extended hours appointments were available between 6.30pm and 8pm on Mondays.

Updated 3 August 2016

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

• 90% of patients diagnosed with dementia had received a face to face care review in the last 12 months, which was above the CCG and national average of 84%.
• 71% of patients experiencing poor mental health had a comprehensive care plan, which was below the CCG average of 87% and 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 offered an in-house counselling service.
• 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.

Updated 3 August 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 travellers and 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 had recently appointed a member of staff as an multidisciplinary team co-ordinator. This role involved meeting with patients and their families or carers to gain a clear insight of their different needs, liaising with the local out of hours provider, undertaking audits, reviewing data on the local Urgent Care Dashboard and attending meetings alongside a clinical member of the team.
• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• Patients who were carers were proactively identified and signposted to local carers’ groups. Furthermore, the practice was engaged with the Carers’ Prescription Service.
• 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.