Oakleaf Medical Practice

Updated 10 January 2017

Oakleaf Medical Practice is managed by a partnership of four GPs, and provides primary medical services to just over 8000 patients. The patient population includes 50% Asian, 30% Romanian, 10% Somali and 10% mixed ethnicity. The practice has a higher than national average younger population aged between 0 to 34 years. The level of deprivation within the practice population is above the national average. 

The practice is  located in purpose-built premises at Washwood Heath Health and Wellbeing Centre on Clodeshall Road, Saltley, Birmingham, West Midlands, B8 3SW.  

T he clinical team includes  four male GP partners, one female salaried GP, a practice nurse and four healthcare assistants. A locum practice nurse  and several long-term locums GPs also work at the practice.  The clinical staff are supported by a practice manager and a team of reception and administrative staff.  

The practice is an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract. An APMS contract is a locally negotiated contract open to both NHS practices and voluntary sector or private providers.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. The practice offers extended hours on Monday and Thursday from 6.30pm to 8pm.

Appointment times are from 9am with the last appointment an hour before the practice closes. The practice is also open from 9am and 2pm on Saturday and from 9am to 1pm on Sunday.

The practice has opted out of providing out-of-hours services to their own patients and this service is provided by Birmingham and District General Practitioner Emergency Rooms (Badger) medical service. Patients are directed to this service when the practice is closed.

Updated 10 January 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Oakleaf Medical Practice on 30 March 2016. During that inspection we found that an effective system was not in place for recording, handling and responding to complaints from people using the service or acting on their behalf. There was also limited information to show that  t he learning points from complaints were shared with the staff team, to ensure that appropriate improvements are made.

In view of the above the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing responsive services.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for on our website at Oakleaf Medical Practice www.cqc.org.uk.

We undertook a desk based review on 13 December 2016 to check that the provider had completed the required action, and now met the legal requirement in relation to Regulation 16: Receiving and acting on complaints. We did not visit the practice as part of this inspection. This report covers our findings in relation to the requirement.

This inspection found that the provider had taken appropriate action to meet the legal requirement.

The provider had established a system to ensure:

• Complaints are effectively recorded, handled and responded to in a timely and transparent way in line with the practice’s policy.
• Complaints are reviewed and monitored to identify trends and areas of risks that need to be addressed.
• The learning points from complaints are shared with the staff team to ensure that appropriate improvements are made.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 10 May 2016

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was comparable to the national average (practice average of 82% compared to a national average of 84%).
• The percentage of patients with hypertension having regular blood pressure tests was slightly below the national average (practice average of 79% 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 found that the GPs worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 10 May 2016

• Immunisation rates for childhood vaccinations were comparable to CCG averages.
• The practice ran weekly child health clinics.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and same day appointments were available for children and those with serious medical conditions.
• The practice had developed its own smartphone application to provide relevant practice information in an interactive way and allowed younger patients multiple ways of contacting GPs. The practice also maintained an up-to-date website.
• The practice had healthcare assistants who offered a range of health promotion services and treatments.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and schools.

Updated 10 May 2016

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The leadership of the practice had engaged with this patient group to look at further options to improve services for them. For example, the practice had collaborated with Alzheimer’s Society to raise dementia awareness and a Dementia Support Manager was scheduled to start sessions at the practice from April 2016.

• There were longer appointments available for those that required them.

• Patients were able to book appointments and order repeat prescriptions online.

• Home visits were available for older patients and patients who would benefit from these.

• The consultation rooms were all located on the second floor but a lift was in place to ensure access for those with mobility problems.

• The practice had a level access and automatic doors for the front entrance.

• There were marked parking bays for the disabled near the practice.

Updated 10 May 2016

• 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 extended hours on Mondays and Thursdays from 6.30pm to 8pm to accommodate working patients who could not attend during normal opening hours. The practice also opened during the weekends from 9am and 2pm on a Saturday and from 9am to 1pm on a Sunday.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 62% which was below the CCG average of 79% and the national average of 82%. Exception reporting was high at 14% (6% above the CCG average and 7.5% above the national average).

• We saw evidence to demonstrate that the practice had taken a number of significant steps to increase and promote the uptake of cervical screening and the practice had a dedicated nurse to carry out cervical screening clinics.

• 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 10 May 2016

• Performance for mental health related indicators was slightly higher than the national average (practice average of 93% compared to a national average of 89%). The exception reporting rates were lower for the practice (4%) compared to the CCG (10%) and national (11%) reporting rate.

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia. For example, the practice had collaborated with the Alzheimer’s Society to raise dementia awareness.

• 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. We saw evidence that the GP had completed online mental capacity training.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 10 May 2016

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances and alerts were in place on the clinical patient record system.

• The practice worked with health visitors to identify children who may be vulnerable.

• Weekly ‘Romanian Open Surgeries’ with interpreters to accommodate the growing Romanian population had been set up. The practice was also in the process of recruiting a permanent Romanian practice nurse.

• The practice had collaborated with bereavement and burial services that were sensitive to the special needs of its majority practice patient population which required prompt burials. This had also allowed patients more effective end-of-life care planning and more involvement in key decisions together with family members.

• The practice had participated in a large number of outreach projects. It had worked in partnership with the local police teams, neighbourhood watch, faith groups and others to collaboratively inform patients about health and social care issues and reduce barriers to access.

• 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 staff members for safeguarding and staff had received relevant training. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.