Woolpit Health Centre Also known as Dr Pearson & Partners

Updated 31 May 2017

The practice area covers the village of Woolpit and extends into the outlying villages. The practice offers health care services to around 13,600 patients. The practice was able to offer dispensing services to approximately 52% of its patient population who lived more than one mile (1.6km) from their nearest pharmacy. The dispensing service was integrated with a pharmacy which is separately regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council.

The local team of district nurses are based in the building and a number of other health and social care professionals see patients at the practice. The practice holds a Personal Medical Service (PMS) contract, a locally agreed contract with NHS England. In addition, the practice also offers a range of enhanced services commissioned by their local CCG.

The practice has five male and one female GP partners, and three salaried GPs (two female and one male). The practice is a training practice and has three GP registrars and two Foundation Year two doctors. (A GP registrar is a qualified doctor who is training to become a GP. The foundation programme is a two year training programme for doctors who have just graduated from medical school). The team also includes three practice nurses and two health care assistants. Six receptionists are led by two head receptionists and there are four secretaries and two housekeepers. The practice manager is supported by a practice manager’s assistant. The dispensing service was provided from a pharmacy within the practice, which was staffed by pharmacists, technicians, counter staff and dispensers.

The practice was open between 7am and 7pm on Mondays, from 8am to 6.30pm Tuesdays to Fridays and from 8am to 11am on Saturdays. On weekdays, appointments were from 8.30am to 11.30am and 2pm to 5.40pm. On Mondays early appointments were available from 7am and evening appointments until 7.30pm. Appointments for an emergency surgery were held between 9am to 12noon and from 2pm to 6pm Monday to Friday. An emergency walk in surgery operates from 8am to 11am on Saturdays. A named GP was on duty for emergencies between 7am and 7pm Monday, from 8am to 6.30pm Tuesday to Friday and from 8am to 11am Saturday. Telephone appointments are available throughout the week which includes early morning telephone appointments from 7.30am on a Monday and from 8am Tuesday to Friday. Patients were able to book evening and weekend appointments with a GP through Suffolk GP+ (Suffolk GP+ is for patients who urgently need a doctor’s appointment, or are not able to attend their usual GP practice on a weekday.)

We reviewed the most recent data available to us from Public Health England which showed that the practice demography is similar to the national average, but with less patients between the ages of 20 to 39 compared with the England average and an above average number of patients aged over 50.

Income deprivation affecting children is 9%, which is lower than the CCG average of 13% and national average of 20%. Income deprivation affecting older people is 8%, which is lower than the CCG average of 12% and national average of 16%. Male and female life expectancy at the practice is 82 years for males and 85 years for females. This is slightly above the CCG expectancy (81 years and 84 years) and the England expectancy (79 years and 83 years) respectively.

Updated 31 May 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woolpit Health Centre on 5 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, with requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woolpit Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk .

We undertook a desk-based focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements in relation to the breach identified in our previous inspection on 5 December 2016. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had an effective system in place for monitoring the medicines in GPs bags.

• The practice had updated the medicines searches that were completed quarterly, to ensure that prescribing was in accordance with current best practice. There was an effective policy in place for patients on high risk medicines who had declined to attend for a review.

• Security arrangements for the dispensary had been reviewed and improved. Standard operating procedures had been reviewed and a system was in place to ensure this was completed on a regular basis and dispensing errors were discussed at team meetings.

• The practice had updated the training matrix to include infection control which had been completed by all staff. Infection prevention and control training was booked for July 2017.

Appraisals for most staff had been undertaken. Staff teams undergoing a restructure had undergone an informal appraisal process.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 1 March 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• The practice used the information collected for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) to monitor outcomes for patients (QOF is a system intended to improve the quality of general practice and reward good practice). Data from 2015/2016 showed that performance for diabetes related indicators was 100%, which was above the CCG average of 96% and national average of 90%. Exception reporting for diabetes related indicators was 5% which was below the local average of 12% and the national average of 11% (exception reporting is the removal of patients from QOF calculations where, for example, the patients are unable to attend a review meeting or certain medicines cannot be prescribed because of side effects).
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
• Patients with complex needs 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 nursing team held clinics to review patients with diabetes. These clinics were also attended by West Suffolk Hospital Diabetes Specialist Nurses, to provide intervention for those patients whose needs were more complex.
• The practice pharmacist offered support to patients with long term conditions. For example, explaining the use of medicines devices and ensuring that patients understood medicines regimes.
• The GPs gave their mobile telephone contact numbers to patients who were nearing the end of their life. This enabled patients and/or their family members to call the GP in the evening and at weekends.

Updated 1 March 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• Immunisation rates were in line with the CCG and national average for all standard childhood immunisations. The practice had identified that immunisation rates for children from traveller families were low and had worked with the health visitor to improve this.
• A daily emergency surgery was available for patients if they felt their need was urgent. This included appointments for children and young people. We received positive feedback about the appointment system from two patients who we spoke with who attended with their children.
• 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 offered a full range of contraception services.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• The practice had baby changing and breast feeding facilities available.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 1 March 2017

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.
• Clinical staff provided home visits to patients living in the nursing home covered by the practice.
• Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients for conditions commonly found in older people, including rheumatoid arthritis, dementia and heart failure were above the local and national averages.

Updated 1 March 2017

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. Early morning, early evening and Saturday appointments as well as telephone consultations were available.
• Patients were able to book evening and weekend appointments with a GP through Suffolk GP+ (Suffolk GP+ is for patients who urgently need a doctor’s appointment, or are not able to attend their usual GP practice on a weekday.)
• 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.
• The percentage of women aged 25-64 whose notes recorded that a cervical screening test had been performed in the preceding five years was 82%, which was the same as the local and national average. The exception rate was 2% which is lower than the CCG average of 5% and the national average of 7%.

Updated 1 March 2017

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

• 96% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is better than the local average of 85% and national average of 84%.
• 97% of patients experiencing poor mental health had a comprehensive care plan, which was above the local and national average of 89%.
• The practice had a primary mental health care link worker who undertook a weekly surgery at the practice and offered signposting to secondary care services and advocacy for patients to access the appropriate service.
• Staff from the Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) service attend every week and accepts referrals from the GP and self referrals.
• The practice held monthly multidisciplinary meetings where patients with complex mental health needs were discussed and care plans agreed. The practice worked closely with the Consultant Psychiatrist who would attend the practice to discuss and agree care plans for those patients with the most complex mental health needs.
• 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.

Updated 1 March 2017

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 supported patients who were not able to read or write to complete necessary forms, for example when they registered at the practice.
• The practice had 37 patients on the learning disabilities register. Last year 28 out of the 37 patients had received a care review. 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.
• The practice’s computer system alerted GPs if a patient was also a carer. The practice had identified 384 patients as carers (3% of the practice list).