Post on 02-Aug-2020
1
Care Quality Commission
Inspection Evidence Table
St Johns Surgery (1-567953435)
Inspection date: 22 October 2018
Date of data download: 04 September 2018
Please note: Any Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) data relates to 2016/17.
Safe
Safety systems and processes
Safeguarding Y/N
There was a lead member of staff for safeguarding processes and procedures. Yes
Safety and safeguarding systems, processes and practices were developed, implemented and communicated to staff.
Yes
Policies were in place covering adult and child safeguarding. Yes
Policies were updated and reviewed and accessible to all staff. Yes
Partners and staff were trained to appropriate levels for their role (for example level three for GPs, including locum GPs)
Yes
Information about patients at risk was shared with other agencies in a timely way. Yes
Systems were in place to highlight vulnerable patients on record. There was a risk register of specific patients
Yes
Disclosure and Barring Service checks were undertaken where required Yes
Explanation of any ‘No’ answers:
2
Recruitment Systems Y/N
Recruitment checks were carried out in accordance with regulations (including for agency staff and locums).
Yes
Staff vaccination was maintained in line with current Public Health England (PHE) guidance and if relevant to role.
Yes
Systems were in place to ensure the registration of clinical staff (including nurses and pharmacists) was checked and regularly monitored.
Yes
Staff who require medical indemnity insurance had it in place Yes
Explanation of any answers:
3
Safety Records Y/N
There was a record of portable appliance testing or visual inspection by a competent person
Date of last inspection/Test: 7 April 2018 for St Johns Surgery and 29 March 2018 for the branch surgery.
Yes
There was a record of equipment calibration
Date of last calibration: 20 April 2018 for St Johns Surgery and 27 April for the branch surgery.
Yes
Risk assessments were in place for any storage of hazardous substances e.g. liquid nitrogen, storage of chemicals
Yes
Fire procedure in place Yes
Fire extinguisher checks Yes
Fire drills and logs Yes
Fire alarm checks Yes
Fire training for staff Yes
Fire marshals Yes
Fire risk assessment
Date of completion: 7 October 2016 Yes
Actions were identified and completed.
When the fire evacuation of the building was carried out it was noted that no-one reported to the firemen that the other tenants were safe (there was a nursery in the same building as the practice). This was rectified following the inspection.
Following the incident at Grenfell Tower the practice has undertaken additional safety checks of the building together with BHI parkside who undertake the maintenance of the building. One of the things identified was that when contractors who came into the building to drill a hole in the wall fire smoke could potentially pass through the building if a fire occurred. This was being addressed as a building wise initiative.
Yes
Additional observations:
Health and safety
Premises/security risk assessment?
Date of last assessment: October 2016
Legionella Risk Assessment: 3 July 2018
Yes
4
Health and safety risk assessment and actions
Date of last assessment: October 2018 – no further action was required as everything was in order.
Additional comments:
5
Infection control Y/N
Risk assessment and policy in place
Date of last infection control audit: 27 September 2018
The practice acted on any issues identified
A number of issues were identified which the practice has acted on:
- Ensuring that sharps bins were correctly sized, labelled and used correctly.
- De-cluttering desks and work surfaces before the end of the day so that the cleaners could clean desks and work surfaces.
Yes
The arrangements for managing waste and clinical specimens kept people safe? Yes
Explanation of any answers: External company – NHS England have the contract for infection prevention and control.
6
Risks to patients
Question Y/N
There was an effective approach to managing staff absences and busy periods. Yes
Comprehensive risk assessments were carried out for patients. Yes
Risk management plans were developed in line with national guidance. Yes
Staff knew how to respond to emergency situations. Yes
Receptionists were aware of actions to take if they encountered a deteriorating or acutely unwell patient and had been given guidance on identifying such patients.
Yes
In addition, there was a process in the practice for urgent clinician review of such patients. Yes
The practice had equipment available to enable assessment of patients with presumed sepsis.
Yes
There were systems in place to enable the assessment of patients with presumed sepsis in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.
Yes
Explanation of any answers:
Information to deliver safe care and treatment
Question Y/N
Individual care records, including clinical data, were written and managed in line with current guidance and relevant legislation.
Yes
Referral letters contained specific information to allow appropriate and timely referrals. Yes
Referrals to specialist services were documented. Yes
The practice had a documented approach to the management of test results and this was managed in a timely manner.
Yes
The practice demonstrated that when patients use multiple services, all the information needed for their ongoing care was shared appropriately and in line with relevant protocols.
Yes
Explanation of any answers:
7
Appropriate and safe use of medicines
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
Number of antibacterial prescription items prescribed per Specific Therapeutic group Age-sex Related Prescribing Unit (STAR PU) (01/07/2017 to 30/06/2018) NHS Business Service Authority -
NHSBSA)
1.09 1.05 0.95 Comparable with other practices
The number of prescription items for
co-amoxiclav, cephalosporins and quinolones
as a percentage of the total number of
prescription items for selected antibacterial
drugs (BNF 5.1 sub-set). (01/07/2017 to
30/06/2018) (NHSBSA)
8.4% 8.6% 8.7% Comparable with other practices
Medicines Management Y/N
The practice had a process and clear audit trail for the management of information about changes to a patient’s medicines including changes made by other services.
Yes
Staff had the appropriate authorisations in place to administer medicines (including Patient Group Directions or Patient Specific Directions).
Yes
Prescriptions (pads and computer prescription paper) were kept securely and monitored. Yes
There was a process for the management of medicines including high risk medicines (for example, warfarin, methotrexate and lithium) with appropriate monitoring and clinical review prior to prescribing.
Yes
The practice monitored the prescribing of controlled drugs. (For example audits for unusual prescribing, quantities, dose, formulations and strength).
Yes
There were arrangements for raising concerns around controlled drugs with the NHS England Area Team Controlled Drugs Accountable Officer.
Yes
If the practice had controlled drugs on the premises there were systems for the safe ordering, checks on receipt, storage, administration, balance checks and disposal of these medicines in line with national guidance.
Yes
Up to date local prescribing guidelines were in use. Yes
Clinical staff were able to access a local microbiologist for advice. Yes
For remote or online prescribing there were effective protocols in place for identifying and verifying the patient in line with General Medical Council guidance.
NA
The practice held appropriate emergency medicines and risk assessments were in place to determine the range of medicines held.
Yes
The practice had arrangements to monitor the stock levels and expiry dates of emergency medicines/medical gases.
Yes
There was medical oxygen on site. Yes
The practice had a defibrillator. Yes
8
Both were checked regularly and this was recorded. Yes
Medicines that required refrigeration were appropriately stored, monitored and transported in line with PHE guidance to ensure they remained safe and effective in use.
Yes
Explanation of any answers:
9
Dispensing practices only Y/N
There was a GP responsible for providing effective leadership for the dispensary. Yes
Access to the dispensary was restricted to authorised staff only. Yes
The practice had clear Standard Operating Procedures for their dispensary staff to follow. Yes
The practice had a clear system of monitoring compliance with Standard Operating Procedures.
Yes
Prescriptions were signed before medicines were dispensed and handed out to patents. There was a risk assessment or surgery policy for exceptions such as acute prescriptions.
Yes
If the dispensary provided medicines in weekly or monthly blister packs (Monitored Dosage Systems) there were systems to ensure appropriate and correct information on medicines were supplied with the pack.
NA
Staff were aware of medicines that were not suitable for inclusion in such packs and had access to appropriate resources to identify these medicines. Where such medicines had been identified staff provided alternative options that kept patients safe.
NA
The home delivery service, or remote collection points, had been risk assessed (including for safety, security, confidentiality and traceability).
NA
Information was provided to patients in accessible formats e.g. large print labels, braille labels, information in variety of languages etc.
Yes
There was the facility for dispensers to speak confidentially to patients and protocols described process for referral to clinicians.
Yes
Explanation of any answers
10
Track record on safety and lessons learned and improvements made
Significant events Y/N
There was a system for recording and acting on significant events Yes
Staff understood how to report incidents both internally and externally Yes
There was evidence of learning and dissemination of information Yes
Number of events recorded in last 12 months. 12
Number of events that required action 12
Example(s) of significant events recorded and actions by the practice;
Event Specific action taken
A home visit was booked on the wrong day for the patient.
As a result of this the practice changed their procedure and home visit forms were now placed in the GP’s tray. The practice also introduced a new contact slip to include telephone numbers and emergency contact details to prevent this from happening again.
An examination of an elderly patient revealed that they had a particular device fitted but did not recollect this had been fitted and therefore had not come in to have it removed.
The practice introduced a recall system for patients who had this device fitted as they felt there might be other patients with memory issues who might be in the same situation.
A patient called the surgery to say that she had received an appointment from an optician having been referred by a GP. There were two patients with the same name and the wrong one had been booked into the appointment with the GP.
The notes of both patients were corrected following this incident. The optician was provided with details of the correct patients. A warning was put on the patient records to alert staff that two patients had the same name.
Safety Alerts Y/N
There was a system for recording and acting on safety alerts Yes
Staff understand how to deal with alerts Yes
Comments on systems in place: Alerts were received by the Practice Manager and forwarded to one of the three Practice Pharmacists for distribution and action. The practice manager maintained an alert log which included details of receipt, type of alert, action taken and completion date.
11
We reviewed the log during the inspection and saw that the practice took action when required. For example, we saw an alert about a shortage of EpiPens. The practice contacted affected patients and advised them what they should do.
12
Effective
Effective needs assessment, care and treatment
Prescribing
Indicator Practice
performance
CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
Average daily quantity of Hypnotics prescribed per Specific Therapeutic group Age-sex Related Prescribing Unit (STAR PU) (01/07/2017 to
30/06/2018) (NHSBSA)
0.56 0.72 0.83 Comparable with other practices
People with long-term conditions
Diabetes Indicators
Indicator Practice
performance
CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the
register, in whom the last IFCC-HbA1c is 64
mmol/mol or less in the preceding 12 months
(01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
78.7% 78.6% 79.5% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
5.7% (43) 8.7% 12.4%
Indicator Practice
performance
CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the
register, in whom the last blood pressure reading
(measured in the preceding 12 months) is
140/80 mmHg or less (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017)
(QOF)
84.2% 78.9% 78.1% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
4.1% (31) 6.7% 9.3%
13
Indicator Practice
performance
CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the
register, whose last measured total cholesterol
(measured within the preceding 12 months) is 5
mmol/l or less (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
78.4% 82.2% 80.1% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
11.5% (87) 12.4% 13.3%
Other long term conditions
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with asthma, on the
register, who have had an asthma review in the
preceding 12 months that includes an
assessment of asthma control using the 3 RCP
questions, NICE 2011 menu ID: NM23
(01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
75.1% 75.5% 76.4% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
1.4% (12) 4.8% 7.7%
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with COPD who have
had a review, undertaken by a healthcare
professional, including an assessment of
breathlessness using the Medical Research
Council dyspnoea scale in the preceding 12
months (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
95.4% 92.0% 90.4% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
2.6% (4) 8.4% 11.4%
14
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with hypertension in
whom the last blood pressure reading measured
in the preceding 12 months is 150/90mmHg or
less (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
90.8% 84.1% 83.4% Variation (positive)
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
2.2% (34) 2.5% 4.0%
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
In those patients with atrial fibrillation with a
record of a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more,
the percentage of patients who are currently
treated with anti-coagulation drug therapy
(01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
86.5% 91.9% 88.4% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
8.9% (16) 12.2% 8.2%
Any additional evidence or comments
15
Families, children and young people
Child Immunisation
Indicator Numerator Denominator Practice
%
Comparison
to WHO
target
The percentage of children aged 1 who have
completed a primary course of immunisation
for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Pertussis,
Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib)((i.e. three
doses of DTaP/IPV/Hib) (01/04/2016 to
31/03/2017)(NHS England)
134 138 97.1%
Met 95% WHO
based target
(significant
variation positive)
The percentage of children aged 2 who have
received their booster immunisation for
Pneumococcal infection (i.e. received
Pneumococcal booster) (PCV booster)
(01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (NHS England)
164 170 96.5%
Met 95% WHO
based target
(significant
variation positive)
The percentage of children aged 2 who have
received their immunisation for Haemophilus
influenza type b (Hib) and Meningitis C
(MenC) (i.e. received Hib/MenC booster)
(01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (NHS England)
164 170 96.5%
Met 95% WHO
based target
(significant
variation positive)
The percentage of children aged 2 who have
received immunisation for measles, mumps
and rubella (one dose of MMR) (01/04/2016 to
31/03/2017) (NHS England)
164 170 96.5%
Met 95% WHO
based target
(significant
variation positive)
Any additional evidence or comments
16
Working age people (including those recently retired and students)
Cancer Indicators
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of women eligible for cervical
cancer screening at a given point in time who
were screened adequately within a specified
period (within 3.5 years for women aged 25 to 49,
and within 5.5 years for women aged 50 to 64)
(01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (Public Health England)
78.9% 75.0% 72.1% Comparable with other practices
Females, 50-70, screened for breast cancer in last
36 months (3 year coverage, %) (PHE)
72.6% 75.9% 70.3% N/A
Persons, 60-69, screened for bowel cancer in last
30 months (2.5 year coverage, %)(PHE)
60.6% 58.9% 54.6% N/A
The percentage of patients with cancer,
diagnosed within the preceding 15 months, who
have a patient review recorded as occurring within
6 months of the date of diagnosis. (PHE)
78.3% 78.4% 71.2% N/A
Number of new cancer cases treated (Detection
rate: % of which resulted from a two week wait
(TWW) referral) (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (PHE)
55.4% 53.4% 51.6% Comparable with other practices
Any additional evidence or comments
17
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)
Mental Health Indicators
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with schizophrenia,
bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses
who have a comprehensive, agreed care plan
documented in the record, in the preceding 12
months (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
96.9% 93.1% 90.3% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
13.3% (10) 9.3% 12.5%
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with schizophrenia,
bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses
whose alcohol consumption has been recorded
in the preceding 12 months (01/04/2016 to
31/03/2017) (QOF)
93.8% 92.3% 90.7% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
13.3% (10) 6.9% 10.3%
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients diagnosed with
dementia whose care plan has been reviewed in
a face-to-face review in the preceding 12 months
(01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
82.2% 84.4% 83.7% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
7.6% (6) 4.8% 6.8%
Any additional evidence or comments
Monitoring care and treatment
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
Overall QOF score (out of maximum 559) 554 550 539
Overall QOF exception reporting (all domains) 4.0% 4.2% 5.7%
18
Coordinating care and treatment
Indicator Y/N
The contractor has regular (at least 3 monthly) multidisciplinary case review meetings where all
patients on the palliative care register are discussed (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
Yes
Helping patients to live healthier lives
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of patients with any or any
combination of the following conditions: CHD,
PAD, stroke or TIA, hypertension, diabetes,
COPD, CKD, asthma, schizophrenia, bipolar
affective disorder or other psychoses whose
notes record smoking status in the preceding 12
months (01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017) (QOF)
98.2% 95.7% 95.3% Comparable with other practices
QOF Exceptions
Practice Exception rate
(number of exceptions)
CCG Exception
rate
England Exception
rate
0.5% (13) 0.4% 0.8%
Consent to care and treatment
Description of how the practice monitors that consent is sought appropriately
During the inspection we reviewed copies of consent forms for minor surgery and were assured
consent was taken in line with current guidelines.
19
Caring
Kindness, respect and compassion
CQC comments cards
Total comments cards received 40
Number of CQC comments received which were positive about the service 38
Number of comments cards received which were mixed about the service 2
Number of CQC comments received which were negative about the service 0
Examples of feedback received:
Source Feedback
For example, comments cards, NHS Choices
On NHS Choices there were four reviews about the practice. Three out of four of the reviews gave the practice a five-star rating.
One patient commented that their child had been unwell overnight. They were promptly seen when they bought the child to the surgery the following morning and treatment commenced.
Another patient stated that reception staff were friendly and helpful. They were also pleased about the continuity of seeing the same GP.
Another patient stated that they have been in the practice for over 20 years and has always been treated with dignity and respect.
One of the reviews gave the practice a one-star rating. They commented that they were happy with the overall service of the practice however they have found it difficult to obtain appointments.
The CQC comment cards were very positive about the service provided by the practice and the branch surgery. Patients commented on the high quality of care and how accessible the doctors were. Many patients commented that they could get appointments on the same day.
Two patients gave mixed reviews and said they were happy to be able to obtain same day appointments at the practice but felt they did not always get to see the GP of their choice for same day appointments.
20
Friends and Family Test
(extremely likely or likely to recommend the practice to Friends and Family)
September: 94% (396 replies out of 422)
August: 93% (386 replies out of 415)
July: 96% (174 replies out of 181)
June: 100% (5 replies out of 5)
May: No responses
April: 92% (361 replies out of 392)
March: 95% (417 replies out of 439)
There was no collection in May whilst the Practice sought clarification regarding the implications of General Data Protection Regulation on the use of text messaging.
21
National GP Survey results
Practice
population size Surveys sent out Surveys returned
Survey
Response rate%
% of practice
population
13,623 239 117 48.95% 1%
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that they would definitely or
probably recommend their GP surgery to
someone who has just moved to the local area
(01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
99.3% 81.1% 78.9% Significant Variation (positive)
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a GP,
the GP was good or very good at listening to them
(01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
92.4% 89.8% 88.8% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who answered positively to question 22
“Did you have confidence and trust in the GP you
saw or spoke to?” (01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
99.1% 96.4% 95.5% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a GP, the GP was good or very good at
treating them with care and concern (01/01/2017 to
31/03/2017)
92.2% 86.8% 85.5% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a nurse, the nurse was good or
very good at listening to them (01/01/2017 to
31/03/2017)
96.7% 93.2% 91.4% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a nurse, the nurse was good or very good
at treating them with care and concern (01/01/2017
to 31/03/2017)
96.4% 92.9% 90.7% Comparable with other practices
Any additional evidence or comments
22
Question Y/N
The practice carries out its own patient survey/patient feedback exercises. No
Any additional evidence
During the inspection the GPs shared some of the positive feedback they had received from the survey. Patients commented that they felt involved in their care and that doctors were approachable and caring. Patients also commented how easy it was to book an appointment with the practice.
23
Involvement in decisions about care and treatment
Examples of feedback received:
Source Feedback
Patient Feedback
During the inspection the practice shared letters and emails they had received from patients. A few patients, who had joined the practice as temporary patients whilst visiting family, were positive about the care they had received.
National GP Survey results
Indicator Practice CCG
average
England
average
England
comparison
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a GP, the GP was good or very good at
explaining tests and treatments (01/01/2017 to
31/03/2017)
93.7% 88.4% 86.4% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a GP, the GP was good or very good at
involving them in decisions about their care
(01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
89.8% 82.5% 82.0% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a nurse, the nurse was good or very
good at explaining tests and treatments
(01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
96.8% 91.5% 89.9% Variation (positive)
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they saw or
spoke to a nurse, the nurse was good or very good
at involving them in decisions about their care
(01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
86.0% 87.3% 85.4% Comparable with other practices
Any additional evidence or comments We spoke with the managers of the care homes the GPs looked after. The feedback was very positive. The care home managers felt that the GPs responded to them in a timely manner and were accessible.
24
Question Y/N
Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language.
Yes
Patient information leaflets and notices were available in the patient waiting area which told patients how to access support groups and organisations.
Yes
Information leaflets were available in easy read format. Yes
Information about support groups was available on the practice website. Yes
Carers Narrative
Percentage and number of carers identified
311 patients were carers which was 2% of the practice list.
How the practice supports carers
Carers were offered flu vaccines. The practice displayed support information in the waiting area for carers.
How the practice supports recently bereaved patients
There was no set protocol. The practice assessed the situation on a patient by patient basis. If the GPs knew the families well they would visit, otherwise they wrote to the families. If GPs had concerns about bereaved families they offered support information to them.
25
Privacy and dignity
Question Y/N
Curtains were provided in consulting rooms to maintain patients’ privacy and dignity during examinations, investigations and treatments.
Yes
Narrative
Arrangements to ensure confidentiality at the reception desk
We saw curtains in consulting rooms during our interviews with GPs and the nurse. Chaperone posters were displayed in consulting rooms and the waiting room.
Question Y/N
Consultation and treatment room doors were closed during consultations. Yes
A private room was available if patients were distressed or wanted to discuss sensitive issues.
Yes
Examples of specific feedback received:
Source Feedback
Interviews with administrative staff
Administrative staff informed us they would offer a private room to a patient if a patient was visibly upset in the reception area. They shared an example of when this happened.
26
Responsive
Responding to and meeting people’s needs
Practice Opening Times
Day Time
Monday 7am to 8pm
Tuesday 8am to 6.30pm
Wednesday 7am to 6.30pm
Thursday 8am to 6.30pm
Friday 8am to 6.30pm
Appointments available
During these times
Extended hours opening
Two Saturdays per month 8am to 11am
Branch Surgery opening hours
Monday 8am to 12.30pm
Tuesday 7.30am to 12.30pm
Wednesday 8am to 12.30pm
Thursday 8am to 12.30pm
Friday 8am to 12.30pm
Home visits Y/N
The practice had a system to assess whether a home visit was clinically necessary and the urgency of the need for medical attention
Yes
If yes, describe how this was done
The receptionists booked home visit slots on the practice computer system. Home visits were triaged and allocated by the on-call doctor.
27
Timely access to the service
National GP Survey results
Practice
population size Surveys sent out Surveys returned
Survey
Response rate%
% of practice
population
13,623 239 117 48.95% 1%
Indicator Practice CCG
average England average
England comparison
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who were ‘Very satisfied’ or ‘Fairly
satisfied’ with their GP practice opening hours
(01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
86.8% 78.6% 80.0% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who gave a positive answer to ‘Generally,
how easy is it to get through to someone at your
GP surgery on the phone?’ (01/01/2017 to
31/03/2017)
94.3% 77.0% 70.9% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who stated that the last time they wanted
to see or speak to a GP or nurse from their GP
surgery they were able to get an appointment
(01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
86.9% 75.9% 75.5% Comparable with other practices
The percentage of respondents to the GP patient
survey who responded positively to the overall
experience of
making an appointment (01/01/2017 to 31/03/2017)
85.5% 74.7% 72.7% Comparable with other practices
Any additional evidence or comments
28
Listening and learning from complaints received
Complaints Y/N
Number of complaints received in the last year. 12
Number of complaints we examined 12
Number of complaints we examined that were satisfactorily handled in a timely way 12
Number of complaints referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman 0
Additional comments:
Examples of the practice’s response to complaints
Complaints were actioned in accordance with the practice’s complaints policy.
We saw an example of a complaint made by a patient who had come to the practice for a twenty-minute appointment due to the treatment they required. The GP had thought the patient was twenty minutes late and the patient was not happy about this so subsequently complained to the practice manager. Upon investigation it was noted that there had been an error and the patient was only a few minutes late so the practice sent out a letter of apology to the patient.
We saw another example where a patient had written a letter of complaint as they were unhappy a medicine had not been prescribed to them by the GP which they had requested. The GP wrote a letter explaining that the medicine was contra-indicated due to the risk factors of this patient. This patient went on to escalate their complaint to NHS England. NHS England felt that the complaint had been handled appropriately and took no further action.
29
Well-led
Leadership capacity and capability
Examples of how leadership, capacity and capability were demonstrated by the practice
There was regular communication at the practice which demonstrated clear leadership:
• Weekly meetings with the GP partners, practice manager, practice nurse and reception manager.
• Monthly staff meetings with the practice manager, administration team, reception and nursing teams.
• Monthly End of Life meetings with one of the GP partners, the Macmillan nurses and district nurses.
• Regular significant events meetings. Usually the practice waited until they had approximately six significant events and had a meeting to discuss them. In the meantime, they would discuss significant events in the weekly partners’ meetings and monthly staff meetings.
• Quarterly meetings with partners, salaried GPs and GP Registrars.
• Educational meetings as required.
• Safeguarding meetings were held every six to eight weeks with the safeguarding lead and health visitors.
• Quarterly meetings with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the GPs looking after patients on the violent and aggressive scheme.
• Extended access meetings as required. This practice was the lead provider for extended access in Redditch and Bromsgrove.
• Meeting with the Health & Care Trust regarding the Princess of Wales community hospital as required. The practice was the lead provider for the provision of GP medical cover.
• Monthly meetings for promoting clinical excellence referral meetings with the lead GP and practice manager.
• Monthly promoting clinical excellence prescribing meeting with the lead GP and a pharmacist.
• Monthly alliance board meetings with one of the GP partners as the Neighbourhood Team Representative for the Bromsgrove Practices.
• Monthly neighbourhood team meetings with one of the GP partners.
Any additional evidence
Vision and strategy
Practice Vision and values
The practice vision was to deliver holistic care in partnership with patients, relatives and carers. In addition, the practice wanted to encourage patient engagement in making better lifestyle and health choices across the whole health and social care spectrum. The practice aimed to provide a response service which enabled medical and nursing staff to provide continuity and support to its patients.
30
Culture
Examples that demonstrate that the practice has a culture of high-quality sustainable care
Violent Patient Scheme: Two of the GP partners provided clinical leadership and delivery of the Tier 2 violent patient scheme for the county. The practice volunteered to sign up to this scheme with the CCG as they wanted to help vulnerable patients and saw this as an opportunity to upskill themselves. There were 57 patients on the scheme at the time of the inspection. The two GPs who ran this service for the practice had both worked in prisons previously so decided to take this on. The scheme was for patients who had been removed from their own patient list because of violent or aggressive behaviour. The practice would receive an incident form from NHS England with the referral details.
If the patient had been allocated to the scheme for a breakdown in communication then they would be reallocated to a different GP practice. Other patients were reviewed after a year. If the patient had been seen by the GP in the year a decision would be made as to whether they should remain on the scheme or were able to go back to their own GP. The two GPs who looked after patients on the scheme would do so on the ground floor of the practice. They would alert security to stay around the room if required. Quite often the GPs would help to rehabilitate the patients to be back in the practice. Sometimes the GPs would see patients on the scheme in hospital or homeless hostels. Community Hospital GP Cover: The practice looked after a ward in the Princess of Wales community hospital a mile away called Red Ward . There were 12 beds in Red Ward for patients. The types of patients looked after by the practice in Red Ward were patients who were often frail and elderly though some younger patients with predominantly movement related disabilities were also treated on the ward. For example patients with Multiple Sclerosis or a urinary tract infection leading to decreased mobililty. The older patients were usually patients with infections and frailty or immobility problems. Sometimes the practice also dealt with more unusual diagnoses such as patients with side effects from chemotherapy treatment such as constipation or patients who were unwell due to sodium deficiency. The practice have also looked after a number of patients with exacerbations of chronic heart failure and Parkinsons Disease. The practice shared examples of patients with fractures they had looked after on Red Ward. This service was accessible by GPs in surrounding practices by calling a dedicated number to make the referral. Therefore patients from other practices benefited from this service. The patients were usually discharged from Red Ward within a week. One of the GPs went to A&E three days a week to identify patients who could be treated at Red Ward. Patients were given the choice of moving to Red Ward or remaining in the acute hospital. Physiotherapists and occupational therapists also saw patients on Red Ward. The GPs went to the other wards in the community hospital to see if there were patients that could be managed on Red Ward. If this was the case then patients would be moved here. This resulted in fewer unplanned acute admissions. This figure was currently at 9% of the practice population which was lower than other practices in the area. The practice had carried out an audit over a two month period which showed 66 referrals made to Red
31
Ward. Out of the 66 patients reviewed 55 of the patients had prevented an acute admission. Minor Surgery: The practice carried out minor surgery for their own patients and for patients of neighbouring practices hence reducing referral rates to secondary care. Clinics: The practice ran one stop vascular clinics where the reviews were done and the patients could have their tests, see a nurse and a GP all in one go. At the time of the inspection the practice informed us of their plans to run diabetic clinics in the same way with HCAs, nurses and GPs present similar to what a patient would experience in hospital outpatients. They were moving towards the one-stop service.
Examples of feedback from staff or other evidence about working at the practice
Source Feedback
Conversations with non-clinical staff
During the inspection we spoke with four of the administrative staff who worked at the practice. They informed us that the practice manager and GPs were very supportive. They all enjoyed working at the practice and were proud to be there.
Feedback from Registrars at the practice
One of the GP trainees at the practice commented on how supportive they found the GPs. They said the GPs were friendly and approachable. The GP trainee had a named supervisor and each day discussed patients with the named supervisor. They had a thorough induction to the practice and were able to shadow GPs, nurses and pharmacists as part of the induction.
Any additional evidence
There was an emphasis on training and developing at the practice. For example: One member of the administrative staff had completed their business administration NVQ. This enabled them to move from a reception role and become a document handling administrator. Another member of the team who was currently a junior dispenser was doing their NVQ2 as a dispenser alongside doing the pharmacy skills course. They were due to finish in April but as they were progressing so well were likely to have completed by the end of the year. Another secretary had a particular interest in finance. They undertook some extra training sponsored by the practice and were now in a finance role.
32
Governance arrangements
Examples of structures, processes and systems in place to support the delivery of good
quality and sustainable care.
Practice specific policies Incident management procedure – June 2014. Medical emergency procedure – November 2014. Disaster handling and business continuity plan – October 2018. Clinical Supervision policy – October 2018 Clinical Governance Policy- October 2018.
Y/N
Staff were able to describe the governance arrangements Yes
Staff were clear on their roles and responsibilities Yes
Managing risks, issues and performance
Major incident planning Y/N
Major incident plan in place Yes
Staff trained in preparation for major incident Yes
Examples of actions taken to address risks identified within the practice
Risk Example of risk management activities
Interviews with staff The induction process was thorough and staff had the opportunity to shadow colleagues.
Risk assessments The practice had a comprehensive range of risk assessments that covered all areas of the practice premises and staff working conditions. These were regularly checked and updated as needed.
Staff files Staff were offered an annual appraisal to assess learning needs and were given protected time to undertake training.
33
Appropriate and accurate information
Question Y/N
Staff whose responsibilities include making statutory notifications understood what this entails.
Yes
Engagement with patients, the public, staff and external partners
Feedback from Patient Participation Group (PPG);
Feedback
We spoke to a member of the PPG before inspecting the practice. The member of the PPG explained that they and their partner had been patients at the practice for a number of years. They described the care they received as exceptional. The member of the PPG confirmed that they will be working more closely with the practice to help to develop a newsletter and to have more face to face meetings rather than the virtual PPG that they now have. They felt supported by the practice.
Continuous improvement and innovation
Examples of improvements demonstrated as a result of clinical audits in past two years
Audit area Improvement
Gestational Diabetes
The aim of the audit was to look at how good the practice was at following women up with a history of gestational diabetes. The practice only had 22 patients with a documented history of gestational diabetes which seemed like a small number given the 13,600 practice list size.
It was agreed that patients with gestational diabetes would be checked for diabetes at the six week postnatal check. If the postnatal test was normal they would be checked again in 12 months. Diet and lifestyle advice would be given to the patient and they would be asked to report any symptoms of diabetes. If the test came back as abnormal they would see the GP with a special interest in diabetes in the diabetic clinic. A year later this was re-audited. This time 50 patients were identified. Of the 50 patients two patients had gone on to develop diabetes and 10 patients were in the ‘pre-diabetic’ range. The practice was pleased to see a big improvement in their coding and following up of patients with gestational diabetes.
34
Methotrexate audit
The practice carried out an audit to review patients taking methotrexate to ensure that they were being monitored in line with the updated guidelines from June 2017. The purpose of the audit was to minimise
unnecessary blood tests and the associated costs and to update patient records so that their monitoring requirements were readily visible. The audit findings showed that the all patients at the practice were prescribed 2.5mg tablets with the exception of one patient who was on weekly injections. Most of the patients had been on a stable dose for at least six weeks, there was only one patient who was initiated on methotrexate by the practice under instruction of the dermatologist, this is not in line with the shared care arrangements and a breech form was completed for this. There were certain aspects of the blood tests that needed to be checked at least every 12 months, but upon doing the audit the practice realised that most patients had theirs checked each time they attended for a blood test. They realised this could be reduced to six monthly. Following this the practice ensured the audit findings were discussed at a practice meeting. They obtained shared care agreements from secondary care when a patient was initiated on methotrexate.
Any additional evidence
In total the practice had carried out nine audits: Gestational Diabetes – July 2015 and October 2018 Methotrexate Monitoring and Prescribing – March and October 2018 Minor Surgery – Reviews carried out in July 2017 and August 2018 Infection Control – April 2018 Audit of Patients taking Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC) – August 2018 Audit of Women of Childbearing Age taking Sodium Valproate – August 2017 Minor Surgery Extended Access Learning Disabilities
Notes: CQC GP Insight
GP Insight assesses a practice's data against all the other practices in England. We assess relative performance for the majority of indicators using a “z-score”
(this tells us the number of standard deviations from the mean the data point is), giving us a statistical measurement of a practice's performance in relation to
the England average. We highlight practices which significantly vary from the England average (in either a positive or negative direction). We consider that
z-scores which are higher than +2 or lower than -2 are at significant levels, warranting further enquiry. Using this technique we can be 95% confident that the
practices performance is genuinely different from the average. It is important to note that a number of factors can affect the Z score for a practice, for example
35
a small denominator or the distribution of the data. This means that there will be cases where a practice’s data looks quite different to the average, but still
shows as comparable, as we do not have enough confidence that the difference is genuine. There may also be cases where a practice’s data looks similar
across two indicators, but they are in different variation bands.
The percentage of practices which show variation depends on the distribution of the data for each indicator, but is typically around 10-15% of practices. The
practices which are not showing significant statistical variation are labelled as comparable to other practices.
N.B. Not all indicators in the evidence table are part of the GP insight set and those that aren’t will not have a variation band.
The following language is used for showing variation:
Variation Band Z-score threshold
1 Significant variation (positive) Z ≤-3
2 Variation (positive) -3 < Z ≤ -2
3 Comparable to other practices -2 < Z < 2
4 Variation (negative) 2 ≤ Z < 3
5 Significant variation (negative) Z ≥3
6 No data Null
Note: for the following indicators the variation bands are different:
• Child Immunisation indicators. These are scored against the World Health Organisation target of 95% rather than the England average.
It is important to note that z-scores are not a judgement in themselves, but will prompt further enquiry, as part of our ongoing monitoring of GP practices.
Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions on GP Insight can be found on the following link:
http://www.cqc.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-use-information/monitoring-gp-practices
Glossary of terms used in the data.
• COPD: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease • PHE: Public Health England • QOF: Quality and Outcomes Framework (see https://qof.digital.nhs.uk/). • RCP: Royal College of Physicians. • STAR-PU: Specific Therapeutic Group Age-sex weightings Related Prescribing Units. These weighting allow more accurate and meaningful comparisons within a specific
therapeutic group by taking into account the types of people who will be receiving that treatment.( See NHS Choices for more details).