You are here

Archived: Diadem Medical Practice

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We have not inspected this service yet

Inspection summaries and ratings from previous provider


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Diadem Medical Practice on 25 August 2015.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities including disabled access which included a lift to allow access to first floor consulting rooms.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available in the practice leaflet and on their website. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service.
  • The practice proactively sought to educate their patients to manage their medical conditions and improve their lifestyles by having additional in house services available. These included 24 hour blood pressure monitoring and long term conditions clinics.
  • There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety for example, infection control procedures.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles.
  • The practice made good use of audits and had shared information from their audits with staff to promote better patient outcomes.

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

Importantly the provider should:

  • Ensure all staff are aware of the business emergency arrangements including contact numbers from the business continuity plan and staff to call.
  • Ensure all staff are aware of the whistleblowing policy and procedures.
  • Ensure the designated Infection Control lead is fully aware of their defined responsibilities.
  • Ensure all staff training for Infection Control and the training is also included as part of the practice induction process.

Ensure all multi-disciplinary health professional reviews and meetings are consistently recorded.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 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 well managed. There were sufficient numbers of staff with an appropriate skill mix to keep patients safe. Appropriate recruitment checks had been carried out on staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services. Data showed patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality. 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. 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 appropriate training planned to meet these needs. There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff. Staff worked with multidisciplinary teams.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for providing caring services. 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. We also saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect and maintained confidentiality. Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed that patients rated the practice as slightly above others for several aspects of care compared to local and national averages.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated good for providing responsive services. It reviewed the needs of its local population and engaged with the local 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. The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. 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 29 October 2015

The practice is rated good for being well-led. It had a clear vision and strategy. Governance arrangements were underpinned by 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. Staff had received inductions, regular performance reviews and attended staff meetings and events. The practice was aware of future challenges.

Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of people with long-term conditions. These patients had a regular review with either the GP and/or the nurse to check their health and medication. Patients were encouraged to manage their conditions and were referred to health education and other in-house services when necessary, for example a dietician. The practice proactively reviewed patients with undiagnosed diabetes. The aim of this programme was to avoid unplanned admissions for identified patients and they were given 30 minute education sessions to address lifestyle issues. This also included patients with multiple long term conditions and combined clinics were in place.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 29 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. Immunisation rates were good 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. 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, health visitors and school nurses.

Older people

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population, if necessary as well as rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. The practice offered home visits and usual doctor appointments to improve continuity of care. The practice had regular contact with community nurses and participated in meetings with other healthcare professionals to discuss any concerns. However, records of multi-disciplinary team meetings required to be further established.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of this population group had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible. For example, the practice offered extended hours on two evenings until 8.00pm for those people who could not attend during normal opening hours. The practice also offered online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs for this age group.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). All patients experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advanced care planning for patients with dementia. The practice offered home visits in the local community area for patients with poor mental health and had a Practice Nurse leading on patients with severe mental health issues.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 29 October 2015

The practice is rated 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. It had carried out annual health checks and longer appointments were available for people with a learning disability. Staff had been trained 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.