Archived: Injeeli Consultancy Limited Also known as Sundon Park Health Centre

Updated 10 April 2017

Injeeli Consultancy Limited, also known as Sundon Park Health Centre, provides a range of primary medical services to residents of the Sundon Park area of Luton. The practice provides services from its current location of Sundon Park Health Centre, Tenth Avenue, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU3 3EP.

The practice population is ethnically diverse and covers a higher than average number of patients between the ages of 25 and 39 years and a lower than average over the age of 70 years. National data indicates the area is one of mid deprivation. The practice has approximately 3000 patients with services provided under an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract, a locally agreed contract to provide primary medical services.

The practice is led by a principal, male GP who is supported by regular locum GPs. The nursing team consists of one practice nurse and a health care assistant, both female. There is a team of reception and administration staff all led by a practice manager.

Injeeli Consultancy Limited is open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Extended opening hours are offered from 6.30pm to 7pm Monday to Friday and from 8am to 12pm on Saturday.

When the practice is closed, out of hours services are provided by Care UK and can be accessed via the NHS 111 service.

Updated 10 April 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Injeeli Consultancy Limited on 31 August 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.
• The practice had identified 21 patients as carers, which was 0.7% of the practice list. There was a carers board in the waiting area with written information to direct carers to the avenues of support available to them.
• 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. The practice kept records of written correspondence; however, they informed us that verbal interactions were not always documented.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with urgent appointments available the same day, although sometimes there was a lack of continuity as locum GPs were used to support the principal GP in the practice.
• The practice facilities were 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.
• Medicines and vaccines in the practice were stored securely. However, the monitoring of the fridge temperature to ensure vaccines and medicines were stored at the correct temperature to maintain efficacy was not done correctly.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Ensure the fridge temperatures are monitored correctly so the vaccines and medicines are stored at the correct temperature to maintain efficacy.
• Continue to identify and support carers.
• Document verbal interactions when patients or family members make a complaint and consider as part of annual trend analysis.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 10 April 2017

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

• The GP and the nurse had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
• Performance for diabetes related indicators was comparable to the local and national averages. The practice achieved 86% of available points, with 5% exception reporting, compared to the CCG average of 87%, with 10% exception reporting, and the national average of 90%, with 12% exception reporting.
• The principal GP had a special interest in diabetes and had received additional training to help treat patients with this condition. The practice was working on an initiative with the Luton CCG to identify patients that may be pre-diabetic in order to help them improve their lifestyle to stop them from becoming diabetic.
• 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.
• There was a dedicated number for patients with long-term conditions to call the practice urgently in an emergency to receive treatment and avoid hospital admission.

Updated 10 April 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.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 94%, (6% exception reporting) which was above the CCG average of 80% (10% exception reporting) and the national average of 82% (6% exception reporting).
• Chlamydia screening was offered opportunistically to 15 to 24 year olds.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. A private room was offered to nursing mothers who wished to breastfeed.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Updated 10 April 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.
• Care plans were reviewed following hospital admissions.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.
• Services were available for housebound patients that included ear syringing and urgent blood tests.
• All of these patients had a six monthly medicine review dependent on their clinical need.

Updated 10 April 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.

• Extended opening hours were offered from 6.30pm to 7pm Monday to Friday and from 8am to 12pm on Saturdays. This was especially useful for working patients who were unable to attend during normal opening hours.

• 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.

• The practice also encouraged its patients to attend national screening programmes for bowel and breast cancer screening.

  • 72% of females, aged 50-70 years, were screened for breast cancer in last 36 months compared to the CCG average of 71% and the national average of 72%.

  • 52% of patients, aged 60-69 years, were screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months compared to the CCG average of 51% and the national average of 58%.

• Telephone appointments were not offered routinely but were booked with a GP if a patient requested one.

Updated 10 April 2017

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

• 100% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face-to-face meeting in the last 12 months, which is higher than the national average of 84%.
• Performance for mental health related indicators was comparable to the local and national averages. The practice achieved 92% of available points, with 8% exception reporting, compared to the CCG average of 90%, with 11% exception reporting, and the national average of 93%, with 11% exception reporting.
• 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 support groups and voluntary organisations.
• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended A&E 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 10 April 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 and those with a learning disability.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability. All of these patients were offered an annual health check. There were nine patients on the learning disability register and they had all received a health check in the preceding 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 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.
• The practice had identified 21 patients as carers, which was 0.7% of the practice list. There was a carers board in the waiting area with written information to direct carers to the avenues of support available to them.