Archived: Soho Square General Practice

Updated 4 November 2016

Haverstock Healthcare Limited – Soho Square General Practice, provides GP primary medical services to approximately 3950 patients living in the London Borough of Westminster. The patient population groups served by the practice include a cross-section of socio-economic groups with a high prevalence of patients from Chinese ethnic backgrounds.

The practice team comprises of two male GPs providing 18 sessions, a service manager, two practice nurses and four administrative staff.

The practice is open between 8am-7.30pm Monday and Friday and 8am-6.30pm on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Appointments are from 10am-1pm every morning and 4.30pm-7.30pm on Monday and Friday; 4.00pm-6.30pm on Tuesday and Wednesday. Home visits are provided for patients who are housebound or too ill to visit the practice.

The practice has a Personal Medical Services (PMS) contract (PMS is one of the three contracting routes that have been available to enable the commissioning of primary medical services). Haverstock Healthcare Limited were appointed as a caretaker of the practice in July 2015. The practice refers patients to the London Central and West Out of Hours and the NHS ‘111’ service for healthcare advice during out of hours.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the regulated activities of maternity and midwifery services; diagnostic and screening procedures; treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The practice provides a range of services including maternity care, childhood immunisations, chronic disease management and travel immunisations.

Updated 4 November 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Soho Square General Practice on 18 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

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

• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• The provider should improve its identification of patients who are carers and the support offered to them by the practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 4 November 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 diabetes related indicators were similar to the national averages. Performance for the percentage of patients on the diabetes register with a record of a foot examination was 82% in comparison to the national average of 88%; the percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, who had received an influenza immunisation, was 90% in comparison to the national average of 94%.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review 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 4 November 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, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances.

• Patients 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 74%, which was the same as the national average.

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

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

Updated 4 November 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.

• The practice worked closely with the Primary Care Navigator for the care of older patients. Primary Care Navigators are trained to listen and guide patients to the help and resources they need, from local to national services.

Updated 4 November 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 as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 4 November 2016

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

• Performance for mental health related indicators was better than the national averages. 95% of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses had received a comprehensive, agreed care plan in the last 12 months which was above the national average of 84%.

• The percentage of patients diagnosed with dementia whose care had been reviewed in a face-to-face consultation in the last 12 months was 89% which was above the national average of 84%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

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

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• 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.

Updated 4 November 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.