You are here

Southview Medical Practice Good Also known as Southview Surgery

Reports


Review carried out on 3 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Southview Medical Practice on 3 October 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 24/05/2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Southview Medical Practice on 24 May 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.
  • Key members of the practice had collaborated with the clinical commissioning group and local community services to help in the development of a service designed to provide health, social care and community services in one place for older people.
  • The practice had developed links with other services supporting vulnerable people in the locality and provided medical care to these groups including the homeless.
  • 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 two surgery sites. One of these was purpose built and had good facilities for patients, the other site had limited space and there were plans to relocate this site. The practice 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 one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had taken the initiative to improve healthcare access for people who historically had poor access. They provided holistic care to vulnerable people and took an approach beyond the traditional model. The practice had strong links with a local homeless shelter and other services for vulnerable people. They had worked closely with staff at the homeless shelter to improve the healthcare of people using their service, which had a positive impact on their health outcomes. The practice staff had received training from a manager at the homeless shelter to help them understand how to manage people who attended from the shelter, how to register them and deal with different behaviours. The impact of this approach was that patients with long term conditions had received specialist help which they had not been able to access previously.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • The practice should continue to review how to improve patient ratings on how they are involved in decisions about their care, as reported in the national patient survey
  • The practice should continue to review how to improve telephone access for patients

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 13 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We found that the service provided care that met the needs of the people who used the service and that promoted people's safety and wellbeing. People we spoke with were complimentary about the service. One person told us, "I used to come here as a child when my Mum bought me. I've stayed ever since because it's so good." Several people whose opinions we sought told us that sometimes there had been delays in obtaining appointments. One said, "I had to wait two weeks once but it wasn't an urgent matter really."

The medical practice cooperated with other providers to ensure that people who used the service received relevant specialist treatment in an appropriate time frame.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse because staff were trained to recognise and act upon actual or suspected abuse. The service maintained detailed policies and guidance which enabled staff to identify abuse and to report it appropriately. Staff had been recruited in line with the service's policies and in accordance with Regulation 21, Schedule 3 of the Health and Social care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. The relevant checks had been carried out and people who used the service could be assured that they were cared for by staff who were suitably qualified, skilled and were safe to deliver that care.

The service maintained a complaints policy and complaints received had been recorded and dealt with in accordance with the laid down policy.