Updated 22 January 2025
Date of Assessment: 4-8 April 2025. Royal Primary Care Brooklyn is a GP practice and delivers services to 7,185 people under a contract held with NHS England. It is 1 of 4 GP practices that forms Royal Primary Care which operates as a division of primary care for Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. We carried out an assessment because the practice had not been assessed since it was taken over by this provider. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 97.5% white, 1.1% mixed, 0.9% Asian, 0.3% black and other 0.2%. The age distribution of the practice population closely mirrors the local and national averages. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 5th decile (5 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The service had a positive learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Staff understood and managed risks. However, there were some back logs in the processing of letters and test results. There were systems in place to address this. Facilities and equipment did not always meet the needs of people however, the provider addressed these immediately on the day of the assessment. The practice was visibly clean and tidy and action plans were in place to mitigate any potential risks identified. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. There was a strong and innovative culture of developing staff to promote their development and meet the needs of people. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. Immediately following our assessment, the provider made positive changes to the clinical supervision of non-medical prescribers and tracking of prescription stationery.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments and took account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. When a person did not have the mental capacity to be involved in decisions about their care, staff involved those important to them.
People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and their privacy and dignity was respected. People and carers were involved in decisions about their care. There was a carer’s champion to provide additional support to carers. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand to meet their needs such as easy read material. People were made aware of how to give feedback to the practice. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. There was a positive culture in helping staff at all levels to develop in their roles. Staff felt very supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff were very positive about the culture within the practice and the support they received. There were systems in place to support continuous learning and innovation.