You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Bosmere Medical Centre, Solent Road, Havant, Hampshire, PO9 1DQ on 9 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned for.
  • 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 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

  • Review the practice training with regards to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that all staff have the awareness to practise appropriately.
  • Complete a full infection control audit and ensure that this occurs regularly.
  • Significant events recording should be fully completed, followed through and discussed in all cases to ensure any learning from these events is cascaded to all relevant staff.
  • Review recent data and identify areas where they are below national and local performance and identify how they are going to respond.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Lessons were learned and communicated widely to support improvement. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. Risks to patients were assessed and managed. There were enough staff to keep patients safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services. Data showed patient outcomes were similar to other GP practices area. Staff referred to guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and used it routinely. Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and further training needs had been identified There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff. Staff worked with multidisciplinary teams.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services. Data showed that 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 also saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services. It 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. The majority of patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a 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. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed that the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for being well-led. It had a clear vision and strategy. 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. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The patient participation group was active. Staff had received inductions, regular performance reviews and attended staff meetings and events.

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

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. 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 medicine 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 1 October 2015

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 accident and emergency 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. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Older people

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

The practice had quarterly meetings with the community geriatrician and community physiotherapists, to discuss older patients they had seen or who had been referred to them by the GPs.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

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 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). Data from the practice showed that 91.6% of patients experiencing poor mental health had received a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in their record. The practice was encouraging patients who had not wanted a health check to have one. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients 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. Staff had received training on how to care for patients with mental health needs and dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 1 October 2015

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 had 66 patients registered with them who had learning difficulties. The majority of those patients were able to attend the practice but those who could not were visited at a location of their choice. It had carried out annual health checks for patients with a learning disability and 58 out of 66 of these patients had been seen, those not attending were being followed up. It offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability and was encouraging patients to have annual health checks.

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.