Archived: Chorleywood Health Centre

Updated 2 September 2016

Chorleywood Health Centre provides a range of primary medical services from its premises at 15 Lower Road, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 5EA.

The practice serves a population of approximately 6,840 and is a training and teaching practice. The area served is less deprived compared to England as a whole. The practice population is predominantly white British with a South Asian community. The practice serves an above average population of those aged from 5 to 14 years, 40 to 54 years and 85 years and over. There is a lower than average population of those aged 0 to 4 years and 20 to 34 years.

The clinical team includes two male and one female GP partners, one female salaried GP, one nurse practitioner (also a prescriber), one practice nurse, one locum nurse and one healthcare assistant. The team is supported by a practice manager and eight other administration, reception and secretarial staff. The practice provides services under a General Medical Services (GMS) contract (a nationally agreed contract).

The practice is staffed with the doors and phone lines open from 8am to 12.30pm and 2pm to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Between 12.30pm and 2pm daily the doors are closed and phones switched to voicemail and patients directed to emergency numbers if required. There is extended opening until 7pm on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays for GP and nurse appointments. The practice is also open on the second Saturday of every month from 9am to 11.30am for GP pre-bookable appointments. On the week of Saturday opening the practice closes at 6.30pm every week day. Appointments are available from 9am to 11.30am, 2.30pm to 4.10pm and 5pm to 6.30pm daily, with slight variations depending on the doctor and the nature of the appointment. An out of hours service for when the practice is closed is provided by Herts Urgent Care.

Updated 2 September 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Chorleywood Health Centre on 22 June 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 the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Patients were positive about the standard of care they received and about staff behaviours. They said staff were attentive, kind, thorough and helpful. They told us that their privacy and dignity was respected 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 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 improvements are:

• Ensure that all staff employed are supported by completing the essential training relevant to their roles, including safeguarding training.
• Ensure the infection prevention and control lead has the appropriate opportunities to liaise with the local infection prevention teams to keep up to date with best practice.
• Take steps to ensure that hot water temperatures at the practice are kept within the required levels.
• Continue to take steps to ensure that in future National GP Patient Surveys the practice’s areas of below local and national average performance are improved.
• Implement a formal practice wide process for contacting and supporting recently bereaved patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 2 September 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.
• 81% of patients on the asthma register had their care reviewed in the last 12 months. This was above the CCG average of 76% and the national average of 75%.
• Performance for diabetes related indicators was comparable with the CCG and national averages. The practice achieved 92% of the points available compared to the CCG average of 91% and the national average of 89%.
• All newly diagnosed patients with diabetes were managed in line with an agreed pathway.
• 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 GPs worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multi-disciplinary package of care.

Updated 2 September 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 may be at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were comparable to other practices in the local area 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 80% which was comparable to the CCG average of 83% and the national average of 82%.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• There were six week post-natal checks for mothers and their children.
• A range of contraceptive and family planning services were available.

Updated 2 September 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.
• Older people had access to targeted immunisations such as the flu vaccination. The practice had 1,287 patients aged over 65 years. Of those 849 (66%) had received the flu vaccination in the 2015/2016 year.
• There were two named GPs for a local older people’s residential complex and each GP visited once each week to ensure continuity of care for those patients. Two local care homes were visited as required.

Updated 2 September 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 offered online services such as appointment booking and repeat prescriptions as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.
• There was additional out of working hours access to meet the needs of working age patients. There was extended opening until 7pm on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays for GP and nurse appointments. The practice also opened on the second Saturday of every month from 9am to 11.30am for GP pre-bookable appointments. On the week of Saturday opening the practice closed at 6.30pm every week day.

Updated 2 September 2016

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

• 92% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months. This was above the CCG average of 85% and the national average of 84%.
• Performance for mental health related indicators was better than the CCG and national averages. The practice achieved 100% of the points available compared to the CCG average of 96% and the national average of 93%.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people 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.
• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.
• A mental health trust well-being worker was based at the practice once every week as standard. Patients could self-refer to this service.
• There were GP leads for mental health and dementia.

Updated 2 September 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. There were 17 patients on the practice’s learning disability register at the time of our inspection. Of those, all 17 were invited for and seven (41%) had accepted and received a health review in the past 12 months.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability and there was a GP lead for these patients.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.
• 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.
• Additional information was available for patients who were identified as carers and there was a nominated staff lead for these patients.
• The practice had identified 450 patients on the practice list as carers. This was approximately 6.6% of the practice’s patient list.