The High Street Practice

Updated 31 March 2017

The High Street Practice is located in West Drayton in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The practice provides a general practice service to around 6,500 patients. The practice is based in a purpose built premises that is shared with other local NHS services including another GP practice. The premises were old and the practice reported difficulties of not being able to expand and offer a wide range of activities including becoming a teaching practice. At the time of our inspection the practice were in the process of applying for funds to renovate and expand the practice.

The practice is registered as a sole provider with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activities of: treatment of disease, disorder or injury; diagnostic and screening procedures; surgical procedures; family planning services and maternity and midwifery services.

The practice has a General Medical Services (GMS) contract and provides a full range of essential, additional and enhanced services including maternity services, child and adult immunisations, family planning and sexual health services.

The practice has one principal GP and three salaried GPs working a total of twenty four sessions amongst them. The practice has a full time practice manager; the rest of the practice team consists of two part time practice nurses; a full time practice manager  and six administrative staff consisting of medical secretaries,  four reception staff and one administrator.

The practice is open five days a week from 8am-6:30pm on Mondays to Fridays. The practice offers extended hours on Monday until 8:30pm. Consultation times are 8:30am until 1:30pm and 1:30pm until 6:30pm.

When the practice is closed, the telephone answering service directs patients to contact the out of hours provider.

Updated 31 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The High Street Practice on 10 January 2017. 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:

• Review and improve the process of identifying patients who are carers to ensure they are provided with appropriate support and advice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 31 March 2017

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 patients with diabetes, on the register, in whom the last blood test was 64 mmol/mol or less in the preceding 12 months, was comparable to the national average (practice 74%; national 78%). The practices exception reporting rate was 9% which was lower than the CCG and national average of 12%.

• 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 31 March 2017

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. Immunisation rates were relatively high 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, and we saw evidence to confirm this.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 77%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 77% and below the national average of 82%.

• 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, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 31 March 2017

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 monitored the healthcare of patients who lived in nursing and residential homes by undertaking home visits when needed and providing advice over the telephone.

Updated 31 March 2017

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 31 March 2017

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

• 77% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was comparable to the national average. The practice had twenty seven patients who were eligible for the screening.

• Performance for mental health related indicators were higher than the national averages. For example, 96% of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses had a record of agreed care plan, compared to the CCG average of 91% and national average of 89%.

• 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 31 March 2017

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 homeless people, travellers and 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.