Clarendon Park Medical Centre

Updated 18 July 2016

Clarendon Park Medical Centre is a GP practice, which provides primary medical services to approximately 5,100 patients living in the Clarendon Park area south of the city. All patient facilities are accessible. Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group (LCCCG) commission the practice’s services.

The practice has four GPs (three male and one female). The nursing team consists of two practice nurses and a healthcare assistant. They are supported by a Practice Manager and a team of reception staff and administrative staff.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pn Monday to Friday. Appointments are available between 8am and 11.30am and from 2pm til 6pm. Extended hours appointments are offered between 6.30pm and 8.30pm on a Tuesday.

Patients can access out of hours support from the national advice service NHS 111. The practice also provides details for the nearest urgent care centres, as well as accident and emergency departments.

Updated 18 July 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Clarendon Park Medical Centre on 12 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events, lesson were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the practice and there was a no blame culture.

• The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.

• The practice was visibly clean and tidy.

• Templates were in place which met best practice guidance for care and treatment.

• Clinical audits demonstrated a learning environment and where improvements to practice were identified, action was taken.

• Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

• Patient feedback was positive about the service received and said they had the time to discuss their problems during appointments.

• We saw staff were polite and responsive to patient needs. Patient and information confidentiality was maintained.

• Patient feedback told us they were able to make an appointment when they needed one.

• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

• The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, which were audited to ensure adherence to the policies and procedures.

• There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of 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 practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

• The patient participation group was active and contributed to developments within the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• To monitor the new process regarding blood pressure control, specifically for those diagnosed with diabetes.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 18 July 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.

• Performance for some of the diabetes related indicators were better compared to the national average and others were worse. For example in 2014/15, 84% of those diagnosed with diabetes had a blood test to assess diabetes control (looking at how blood sugar levels have been aveaging over recent weeks) compared to 78%. 56% of those diagnosed with diabetes in whom the blood pressure reading was below a specified limit compared to 78%.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and structured annual reviews were planned 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.

Updated 18 July 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.

• Immunisation rates were comparable to local rates for all standard childhood immunisations.

• Patient feedback told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 76%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 69% and the national average of 74%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. Baby changing facilities were available.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Updated 18 July 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.

• All patients over the age of 75 years were allocated a GP.

Updated 18 July 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, including ordering repeat prescriptions and booking an appointment.

• A full range of health promotion and screening was offered that reflected the needs for this age group.

Updated 18 July 2016

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

• 88% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is comparable to the national average of 84%.

• 93% of those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder or other had a comprehensive and agreed care plan in place, compared to 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 living with dementia.

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients living with dementia.

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Referrals were also made to the Mental Health Facilitator.

• 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.

• The practice referred to the Mental Health Facilitator, who also had a clinic at the practice once a week.

Updated 18 July 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 other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice informed 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.

• Practice safeguarding meetings including a health visitor were held and reports were sent to external safeguarding meetings.