You are here

Dr Tree and Dr Jacobs Good Also known as Longton Medical Centre

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Tree, Dr Sood and Dr Jacobs on the 7th October. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There were systems in place to mitigate safety risks including analysing significant events and safeguarding.
  • The practice whilst small and limited for space was clean and tidy. There was a small step and manual doors on entering the building with limited availability for disabled car parking. The practice was in need of a quality impact assessment as per the Equality Act 2010 to help identify actions needing to be taken to improve disabled facilities at the practice.
  • The clinical staff proactively sought to educate patients to improve their lifestyles by regularly inviting patients for health assessments.
  • Patients spoke highly about the practice and the whole staff team. They said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Patients said they found it easy to make appointments and were seen in good time and didn’t wait long at appointments.
  • The practice has a patient participation group (PPG) who met three times a year and had various plans to develop their role in working with the practice staff.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • There was a clear leadership structure with delegated duties distributed amongst the team and staff felt supported by management. The staff worked well together as a team.
  • Quality and performance were monitored.

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

Action the provider SHOULD take to improve:

  • Carry out a quality impact assessment as per the Equality Act 2010 to help identify actions needing to be taken to improve disabled facilities at the practice.

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents. Lessons were learned and communicated within the practice to support improvement. The premises were limited for space and in need of a quality impact assessment as per the Equality Act 2010 to help identify actions needing to be taken to improve disabled facilities at the practice. The premises were clean and tidy. Safe systems were in place to ensure medication including vaccines were appropriately stored and were well managed. There were sufficient numbers of staff. Recruitment checks were carried out and recruitment files were well managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services. The practice monitored its performance data and had systems in place to improve outcomes for patients. Staff routinely referred to guidance from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with best practice and national guidance. This included assessing capacity and promoting good health. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and training planned to meet these needs. There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff. Staff worked well with multidisciplinary teams.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for caring. Patients’ views gathered at inspection demonstrated they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and that staff were caring, supportive and helpful. Data from the National GP Patient Survey published July 2015 showed that patients rated the practice as comparable and exceeded in several aspects of care compared to local and national averages. Some staff had worked at the practice for many years and understood the needs of their patients well.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing responsive services. It reviewed the needs of the local population and engaged with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to secure improvements to services where these were identified. Services were planned and delivered to take into account the needs of different patient groups. Patients were positive about accessing appointments and data aligned with how the appointments were made accessible and well managed. Information about how to complain was available and evidence showed that the practice responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for being well led. There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice had a large number of policies and procedures to govern activity. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

Staff had received inductions, regular performance reviews and attended staff meetings and events.

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. The practice held information about the prevalence of specific long term conditions within its patient population such as diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardio vascular disease and hypertension. This information was reflected in the services provided, for example, reviews of conditions and treatment and screening programmes. The practice continuously contacted these patients to attend annual reviews to check that their health and medication needs were being met. The practice offered extended appointments with the practice nurse to ensure patients with multiple needs were given plenty of time in order to streamline their care and reduce recurrent visits and to help aid patient education.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people. Staff were knowledgeable about child protection and a GP took the lead for safeguarding. Staff put alerts onto a patient’s electronic record when safeguarding concerns were raised. The practice were in the process of formalising meetings with the health visitor to discuss any children who were identified as being at risk of abuse. The practice offered family planning advice. Immunisation rates were comparable and sometimes exceeded local CCG benchmarking for all standard childhood immunisations.

Urgent access appointments were available for children.

Older people

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. The practice was knowledgeable about the number and health needs of older patients using the service. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people.

They kept up to date registers of patients’ health conditions.The practice had identified patients at risk of unplanned hospital admissions and had developed care plans to help review their needs on a regular basis. The practice staff met with the community matron and multi-disciplinary professionals on a regular basis

to provide support and access specialist help when needed.

The practice carried out home visits and also visited care homes in the area.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of this group had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care. For example, the practice offered telephone consultations instead of patients having to attend the practice. The practice offered online prescription ordering, online appointment services and patients could book appointments 24 hours a day over the phone with the automated phone system. Health checks were offered to patients who were over 40 years of age to promote patient well-being and prevent any health concerns.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).The practice maintained a register of patients with mental health problems in order to regularly review their needs or care plans. The practice staff liaised with other healthcare professionals to help engage these patients to ensure they attended reviews. Mental Capacity Act training was available to staff. Staff had received training regarding patients mental health needs and dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 12 November 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice was aware of patients in vulnerable circumstances and ensured they had appropriate access to health care to meet their needs. For example, a register was maintained of patients with a learning disability and annual health care reviews were provided to these patients. All staff were trained and knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable patients and had access to the practice’s policy and procedures and had received guidance in this.