Oakmeadow Surgery - RA Leach

Updated 17 December 2015

Oakmeadow Surgery is a partnership practice. The practice list size is approximately 9,000 patients.

The practice area covers the New Parks, Braunstone Frith, Kirby Frith, and Glenfield area of Leicester.

The practice consisted of four partners, one salaried doctor, two practice nurse and one phlebotomist as well as administrative support staff.

The surgery is open from 8.30 am until 6.00 pm Monday to Friday.

The practice lies within the Leicester City CCG area. A CCG is an organisation that brings together local GPs and experienced health professionals to take on commissioning responsibilities for local health services.

The practice has a GMS contract.

The practice had previously been inspected by the Care Quality Commission but not using this methodology.

Updated 17 December 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Oakmeadow Surgery on 19 January 2015.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• Urgent appointments were available the same day.
• The practice had good facilities including disabled access and was found to be clean and tidy.
• Information about services and how to complain was available.
• Patients said they felt the practice offered an excellent service and staff were friendly and caring and treated them with dignity and respect
• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety for example, infection control procedures.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
• Staff had received training appropriate to their roles.
• Recruitment checks were carried out and the appropriate recruitment checks had been undertaken prior to employment.
• The practice had a comprehensive business continuity plan in place for major incidents such as power failure or building damage.

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 17 December 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.

Updated 17 December 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 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. 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 17 December 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 17 December 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 17 December 2015

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

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

Updated 17 December 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 95% of these patients had received a follow-up. 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.