Archived: Woodgate Valley Health Centre

Updated 6 December 2016

Woodgate Valley Health Centre provides primary medical services to approximately 5,000 patients and is located in Birmingham. The practice originally opened in 1972 and the building was demolished in 2004 to make way for the new purpose built health centre in 2005. Information published by Public Health England rates the level of deprivation within the practice population group as two; on a scale of one to ten, with level one representing the highest level of deprivation.

Services to patients are provided under a General Medical Services (GMS) contract, a nationally agreed contract between NHS England and GP Practices. The practice has expanded its contractual obligations to provide enhanced services to patients. (An enhanced service is above the contractual requirements of the practice and is commissioned to provide additional services to improve the range of services available to patients).

The clinical team includes three GP partners; one male and two female GPs. There are two practices nurses and one health care assistant. The practice is a training practice for GPs and there are two trainee GPs currently at the practice. The GP partners and the practice manager form the management team and they are supported by the reception manager and six reception and secretarial staff .

The practice is open between 8.30am and 6pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, 8.30am to 8pm on Mondays and 8.30am to 1pm on Wednesdays.

Appointments are available from:

8.30am to 12pm, and 3.50pm to 6pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays

8.30am to 12pm, 3.50pm to 6pm and 6.30pm to 8pm on Mondays

8.30am to 12pm on Wednesdays

When the practice is closed the out of hours provision is shared between PrimeCare and South Docs.

Updated 6 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woodgate Valley Health Centre on 3 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
• The practice used innovative methods to improve patient outcomes. Clinical audits had been triggered by new guidance and from learning from significant events.
• 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.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. 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 easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with staff.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from patients, which it acted on. The practice had patient participation group which supported practice development.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.
• There was a strong team culture and the practice was cohesive and organised.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice was innovative in initiating the programme and development of a protocol for the referral of patients to the practice for the initiation of insulin injectable therapy to optimise diabetic control and prevent secondary care referrals for patients with diabetes. Since May 2015, 50 patients had been referred to the practice from seven local practices. The practice introduced quarterly diabetic masterclasses, held with a professor and a member of the diabetic team from the University Hospital Birmingham. We saw evidence from the Clinical Commissioning Group and local practices indicating that the initiative was successful and had improved patient outcomes. Ninety five percent of patients experienced a reduction in their blood glucose levels and in the last year there had been an average of 4kg weight loss.

• The practice shared significant events cross the locality to share learning.The practice carried out a thorough analysis of the significant events, significant events were categorised and graded using a RAG (red, amber, green) rating tool. The incidents rated as red, were linked to the audit programme.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 6 December 2016

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

• Overall performance for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) was 100%, with an exception rate of 9% compared to the CCG average of 13% and national average of 15%.

• The practice were pro-active in improving health outcomes for patients with COPD. We saw evidence to demonstrate that compared with other neighbouring practicesthe practice had low admission rates to hospital for this condition. The practice provided an effective system to identify and follow-up patients with COPD to reduce the risk of exacerbation and hospital admission.

• The practiced developed a protocol for referral of patients for the initiation of insulin injectable therapy to optimise diabetic control and prevent secondary care referrals The practice introduced quarterly diabetic masterclasses, for locally interested GPs and nurses, held with a professor and a diabetic team from the University Hospital Birmingham. Evidence from the CCG and local practices identified that this service was successful, by reducing secondary care referrals, increasing the uptake of insulin therapy, a reduction in patient blood/sugar levels and weight loss.

• The patient participation group had commenced a diabetic forum to provide advice on diet and exercise, with forum members organising walks in the local area. Patients we spoke with were positive about the outcomes

• GPs and nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• 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 6 December 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, there was a monthly safeguarding meeting with health visitors.

• Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations. For example, immunisation rates for vaccines given

• 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, there was a breast feeding room available.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 6 December 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 maintained a palliative care register and held monthly palliative care meetings that included reviews of patients with other conditions for example, dementia and heart failure.

Updated 6 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

• The practice was proactive in offering a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs of this age group.

• 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.

• Appointments could be booked over the phone, face to face and online. The practice offered extended hours on Mondays.

• National cancer intelligence data 2014/15 indicated that the breast cancer screening rates for 50 to 70 year olds was 73% compared to the CCG average of 69% and a national average of 72%. Bowel cancer screening rates for 60 to 69 year olds was 46% compared to the CCG average of 50% and a national average of 58%. There was a policy to send letters to patients to encourage attendance for screening.

Updated 6 December 2016

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

• The percentage of patients diagnosed with dementia whose care has been reviewed in a face-to-face review in the preceding 12 months was 100% compared to the CCG average of 82% and a national average of 84%. Exception reporting was 4% compared to the CCG and national average of 8%.

• Performance for mental health related indicators was higher than the national average at 99% compared to the CCG average of 92% and a national average of 93%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. The lead GP held regular meetings with a consultant psychiatrist.

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

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

• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended A&E where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff had received training on dementia awareness and had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 6 December 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.

• At the time of our inspection, there were 27 patients registered with a learning disability, the practice offered longer appointments for these patients

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients. The practice told vulnerable patients how to access 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 held a register for carers and had identified 74 patients as carers (approximately 1.4% of the practice list).