Cambridge Avenue Medical Centre

Updated 22 June 2016

Cambridge Avenue Medical Centre occupy premises purpose-built in 1984 in Bottesford, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire. They have a General Medical Services (GMS) contract and also offer enhanced services, for example; extended hours, childhood vaccination and immunisation scheme, influenza and pneumococcal immunisations, facilitating timely diagnosis and support for people with dementia, learning disabilities, minor surgery, rota virus and shingles vaccinations and reducing unplanned admissions.

There are 14676 patients on the practice list and the majority of patients are of white British background. The practice population in the 40 to 85+ years age groups is higher than the England average. The practice scored seven on the deprivation measurement scale, which is the third lowest decile. People living in more deprived areas tend to have greater need for health services. The overall practice deprivation score is similar to the England average (the practice is 17.9 and the England average is 21.8).

The practice has three female and five male doctors and is a partnership with four partners. There are four salaried GPs. There are three nurse practitioners, three practice nurses and four health care assistants. All the nursing staff are female.There is a practice manager, two assistant managers and 21 receptionists/ administration staff.

The practice is a training practice with GP registrars and students from Hull York Medical School. The practice is open 8am - 12.30pm and 1.30pm - 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays and has extended hours from 6.30pm - 7.30pm on Monday. Patients requiring a GP outside of normal working hours are advised to contact NHS 111.

There is a branch practice at Messingham which is open Mondays 9.30am -12.30pm and 1pm - 5pm. On Tuesday and Friday it is open 9am - 1pm and on Wednesday 1.30pm - 6.00pm. 

Updated 22 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cambridge Avenue Medical Centre on 28 April 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.
• 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 was not easy to make an appointment with a named GP although 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 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. (This means providers must be open and transparent with service users about their care and treatment, including when it goes wrong).

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice sent a health survey to patients on their 75th birthday. There was a high response rate and the individual responses informed the planning of care of the patient.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 22 June 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.
• 92% of patients on the diabetes register had a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months similar to the national average 88%.
• 96% of patients with diabetes, on the register, had influenza immunisation in the preceding 1 August to 31 March (01/04/ 2014 to 31/03/2015) similar to the national average 94%
• 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.

Updated 22 June 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 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.
• 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.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

Updated 22 June 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.
• The practice had a dedicated elderly care nurse practitioner.
• Since July 2014, patients were sent a health survey and a practice information booklet on their 75th birthday. These patients were advised that they were able to request a routine health check if they had not seen a health professional in the last year. Survey responses were followed up with telephone call, surgery attendance or home visit. Care plans were put in place and carers’ details recorded as appropriate. If necessary patients were referred on to other services e.g. the geriatric falls clinic. The response rate for the survey was over 80%.

Updated 22 June 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 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 22 June 2016

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

• Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed 78% of people diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months compared to the CCG average 75% and the national average 84%.
• 90% of patients with psychoses had a comprehensive, agreed care plan which was similar to the national average of 88%.
• 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 various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency when 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 22 June 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 homeless people, travellers and those with a learning disability.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
• 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.