Background to this inspection
Updated
13 September 2016
- The Hawthorns Surgery provides primary medical services to approximately 12,200 patients in the local community.
- The practice has a General Medical Services (GMS) contract. The GMS contract is a contract between NHS England and general practices for delivering general medical services and is the commonest form of GP contract.
- The practice has six GP partners (two female and four male), one female salaried GP, a practice manager, an office manager, four practice nurses, two healthcare assistants, as well as IT, administrative and reception staff.
- The practice is a teaching practice for medical students as well as a training practice for trainee GPs who had recently completed medical school studies and were undertaking further training.
- The practice is open between 8.15am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Appointments take place from 8.30am to 11am every morning and 3.30pm to 6pm daily. In addition to pre-bookable appointments that can be booked up to two weeks in advance, urgent appointments are also available for patients that need them.
- The practice does not provide an out-of-hours service but has alternative arrangements in place for patients to be seen when the practice is closed. For example, if patients call the practice when it is closed, an answerphone message gives the telephone number they should ring depending on the circumstances.
Updated
13 September 2016
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out a desk-based review of evidence requested from The Hawthorns Surgery on 23 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
During our previous inspection of the practice on 26 November 2015 the practice was rated requires improvement for the safe domain. The practice was issued with one requirement notice for breaches in regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The issues related to legionella risk assessments not being in place and ensuring systems were in place to monitor the use of prescription stationery.
This desk-based review was to assess the action that had been taken by the provider since the last inspection through a review of evidence relating to the issues identified previously. For this reason we have only rated the location for the safe domain. The report should therefore be read in conjunction with the full inspection report published in February 2016.
Through a review of the information sent to us by the provider we found the practice had made changes since their previous inspection in November 2015. We found that robust action had been taken regarding the issues identified at the previous inspection and that the practice was now meeting the requirements of the standards. This meant that the practice was now rated as good in safe domain. All other domains were already previously rated as good.
Specifically we found that since the last inspection:
- The practice had developed and implemented a robust new policy to monitor the use of prescription stationery.
Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. A legionella risk assessment had been completed and the practice had implemented the recommendations to minimise risk.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
People with long term conditions
Updated
18 February 2016
-
Performance for diabetes related indicators was above the national average (practice average of 90% compared to a national average of 84%).
-
Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed
-
Patients had a personalised care plan or structured annual review to check that their health and care needs were being met.
-
For those patients with more complex needs, we identified that the GPs worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.
Families, children and young people
Updated
18 February 2016
-
Same day appointments were available for children and those with serious medical conditions.
-
Immunisation rates for childhood vaccinations were above CCG averages. For example, childhood immunisation rates for under two year olds ranged from 92% to 98% and five year olds from 92% to 98% which compared favourably with national rates of 87% to 96% and 85% to 96% respectively.
-
Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
-
The practice had a dedicated sexual health clinic that offered a range of sexual health promotion services and treatments.
-
The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 81%, which was comparable to the national average of 82%.
Working age people (including those recently retired and students)
Updated
18 February 2016
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)
Updated
18 February 2016
-
Performance for mental health related indicators was above the national average (practice average of 94% compared to a national average of 89%).
-
The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.
-
The practice had informed patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
-
The GP we spoke with had good knowledge of the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
-
Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.
People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable
Updated
18 February 2016
-
The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability and had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability.
-
The practice offered longer appointments for patient requiring an interpreter or for those with a learning disability.
-
The practice had policies that were accessible to all staff which outlined who to contact for further guidance if they had concerns about a patient’s welfare.
-
There was a lead and deputy members of staff for safeguarding and we saw evidence to show that staff had received the relevant safeguarding training.
-
Staff members we spoke with were able to demonstrate that they understood their responsibilities with regards to safeguarding.