Colville Health Centre

Updated 12 September 2018

The Colville Health Centre, 51 Kensington Park Road, London, W11 1PA, provides primary medical services through a General Medical Services (GMS) contract within the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The services are provided from a single location to around 10500 patients. The local area is culturally diverse and the practice population comes from mixed backgrounds.

Updated 12 September 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Colville Health Centre on 7 June 2017. The overall rating for the practice was Good, however the practice was rated as requires improvement in relation to providing ‘effective’ care. The full comprehensive report on the June 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Colville Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 31 July 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 7 June 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had appropriate infection control processes in place.

• When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.

• The practice had appropriate systems for reviewing patients with long term conditions.

• The practice had implemented appropriate system for supporting patients to live healthier lives.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 7 August 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• One GP was the lead for chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met.

• All these patients had a named GP and there was a system to recall patients for 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.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was 70%, which was 14% below the CCG and 20% below national averages

Updated 7 August 2017

The provider was rated as good for 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.

• Childhood immunisation rates for the vaccinations given to under two year olds were below the national averages of 90%.

• Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals. The GPs demonstrated an understanding of Gillick competency and told us they promoted sexual health screening.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 70%, which was below the national average of 82%.
• The practice triaged all requests for appointments on the day for children under two when their parent requested the child be seen for urgent medical matters.

Updated 7 August 2017

The provider was rated as good for 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 double appointments, home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs

• The practice was part of the whole systems integrated care (WSIC) project and ran WSIC clinics for over 75s.

• The practice had signed up to the avoiding unplanned admissions DES.

Updated 7 August 2017

The provider was rated as good for 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 7 August 2017

The provider was rated as good for care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

• The practice had achieved 100% of the latest QOF points for patients with Dementia which was above both CCG and national averages.The practice had annual reviews for patients with dementia, which included early consideration of advance care planning.All dementia patients had a care plan which both they and carers had been involved in drafting.

• The practice had a register of patients experiencing poor mental health. These patients were invited to attend annual physical health checks and 211 out of 235 had been reviewed in the last 12 months.

• The practice worked closely with Primary Care Plus to support patients with mental illness transfer from secondary care back to primary care.

• 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.

• Reception staff we spoke with were aware of signs to recognise patients in crisis and to have them urgently assessed by a GP if they presented.

Updated 7 August 2017

The provider was rated as good for 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 and the homeless. Pop up alerts were placed on all computer notes to alert all members of staff of vulnerable patients.

• Learning Disability patients had care plans that met their needs. Patients with learning disabilities were invited annually for a specific review with their named GP. However, we saw that there was 27 patients on the register and only 14 had been reviewed in the last 12 months.

• 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.