Spinney Hill Medical Centre

Updated 8 May 2015

Spinney Hill Medical Practice provides primary medical services to approximately 12,000 patients from the surgery at 143 St Saviours Road, Leicester. The provider has another practice at 132 Doncaster Road, Leicester with 7,000 patients. The Doncaster Road surgery has a distinct and separate CQC registration and was not inspected.

The practice is situated in the area covered by Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). A CCG is an organisation that brings together local GP’s and experienced health professionals to take on commissioning responsibilities for local health services.

The practice has opted out of the requirement to provide GP services outside of normal hours. The out-of-hours service is provided by The Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Out of Hours Service.

The practice serves an almost exclusively (99%) Asian and Asian British population with a significant proportion of those newly arrived in the United Kingdom. The most commonly spoken languages are English, Gujarati, Hindi and Punjabi. The patient list has risen by 750 in the six months prior to our inspection.

The practice is staffed by eight GP partners and one part time salaried GP, giving a whole time equivalent (WTE) of 8.4. One of the GPs is female. They are assisted by 3.25 WTE practice nurses, three health care assistants and one phlebotomist. The clinical staff are supported by a team of receptionists, administration and information technology staff. The practice is a teaching practice for GP trainees. Three of the GP partners are GP trainers.

Updated 8 May 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Spinney Hill Medical Practice on 27 November 2014. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows;

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
• Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Patients said 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should;

• Provide complaints information in languages other than English.
• Consider training for non-clinical and administration staff to encourage and enable them to report significant events.
• Ensure that written records are maintained of mutli-disciplinary meetings.
• Develop a system for the chronic disease management of the housebound and those living in care/nursing homes.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. There were emergency processes in place and referrals were made for patients whose health deteriorated suddenly. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care. We did note however that there was no formal structure in place for managing patients with long term conditions who were living in residential or nursing homes.

Updated 8 May 2015

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 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. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses. Emergency processes were in place and referrals were made for children and pregnant women whose health deteriorated suddenly.

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 8 May 2015

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 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). 93% of people experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

Updated 8 May 2015

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. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and 80% of these patients had received a health check in the financial year to date. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told 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.