Greasbrough Medical Centre

Updated 11 April 2017

Greasbrough Medical Centre is situated within a purpose built surgery in a small outer suburb of Rotherham. The practice was built in 1978 and extended in 1998. The practice is situated in one of the third most deprived areas nationally.

The practice provides Primary Medical Services (PMS) for 3,386 patients in the NHS Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area. The practice population has a higher ratio of patient’s in the 40 to 60 year old age group.

There are two GP partners, one male and one female. The nursing team comprises of two practice nurses and a health care assistant. There is a practice manager and administration and reception teams.

The practice reception hours are 8am to 6.30pm, Tuesday to Friday and 8am to 8pm on a Monday. Surgery times are 8.30am to 9.30am and 3pm to 5pm Monday to Friday and 6pm to 8pm on a Monday. Extended hours are provided 6.30pm to 8pm on a Monday. No appointment is necessary for the morning surgeries. All patients who arrive during the morning surgery times will be seen by a Doctor. All afternoon surgeries and the late evening surgery are by appointment only.

Out of hours services are provided by Local Care Direct. Calls are diverted to this service when the practice is closed. A walk-in centre is available at Rotherham Community Health Centre

Updated 11 April 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Greasbrough Medical Centre on 19 January 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good with requires improvement for the safety domain. The full comprehensive report for the 19 January 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Greasbrough Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 15 February 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 19 January 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as Good. The practice is now also rated as Good in the safety domain.

Improvements had been made since our last inspection on 19 January 2016. Our key findings were as follows:

• Improvements had been made to the recruitment procedures. Checks that staff were of good character had been made. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had been obtained for all staff who required them due to the nature of their role. Applicant’s physical and mental health had been considered in line with requirements of their role. Recruitment records now included records of interview. The recruitment policy now included the requirements for DBS checks and health checks.

• Storage arrangements for paper towels in clinical rooms had been reviewed and the risk of cross contamination minimised.

• Access to keys for the prescription pad storage area was now controlled.

• Fixed wire installations (the wiring and equipment between the supply meter and the point of use, for example, socket outlets) had been inspected.

• A practice specific risk assessment had been completed and procedures had been developed which identified the actions required to minimise the risk of legionella risk. However, records of routine weekly water temperature checks were not maintained in line with the practice policy and procedure.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 10 March 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.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was 79% which was similar to the CCG average of 83% but worse than the national average of 89%.

• The percentage of patients with hypertension having regular blood pressure tests was 85% similar to the CCG and national averages of 84%.

• 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.

• The practice worked closely with voluntary groups who could provide support in the community, such as Voluntary Action Rotherham, who were invited to multidisciplinary meetings.

Updated 10 March 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.

• 72% of patients diagnosed with asthma, on the register, had had an asthma review in the last 12 months which was comparable to the CCG average of 73% and national average of 76%.

• 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. For example, the practice provided information leaflets for teenagers relating to contraception and sexual health.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 85%, which was below the CCG average of 99% and the national average of 98%. There was a policy to offer telephone reminders for patients who did not attend for their cervical screening test and the practice ensured a female sample taker was available. The practice was aware of the screening uptake results and it had high numbers of patients from specific patient groups who failed to attend. They were reviewing how they could improve patient attendance particularly for those patients with learning disabilities and mental health needs.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. Children were prioritised at the walk-in clinics to minimise their waiting time.

Updated 10 March 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 who needed them.

Updated 10 March 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. A virtual patient participation group (PPG) was available to enable patients to have involvement in the running of the practice via email or the practice website if they were unable to attend the PPG meetings.

• The practice offered pre-bookable appointments during extended hours on a Monday evening from 6.00pm until 8.00pm for working patients who could not attend during normal opening hours. Walk-in surgeries were also provided every morning.

Updated 10 March 2016

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

• Performance for mental health related indicators was 92%, similar to the CCG average of 91% and national average of 92%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those living 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 worked closely with these organisations and they were involved in multidisciplinary meetings.

• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency 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 and had received training in this area.

• The practice offered patients with mental ill health an appointment after the walk-in surgery to minimise their wait and to enable the practice to offer longer appointments for those who needed them. .

Updated 10 March 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 and those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• 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 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.