Addison House - Haque Practice Also known as Addison House Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We issued the provider with an action plan for request following findings that people’s immediate and ongoing needs were not always assessed. We identified some shortfalls in which good governance could be strengthened. Where appropriate this included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing. People were advised what to do if their condition got worse and where to seek further help and support. People did not always feel involved in the assessment of their needs. The needs of carers of people using services were assessed and met. Patients with long term conditions who required monitoring were not always completed in a timely manner. The provider had ben to address the shortfalls following our assessment.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There were 1948 patients diagnosed with asthma. Of these, 48 patients had been prescribed 2 or more doses of rescue steroids. We random sampled 3 patient records and found 1 patient had not received an asthma review since January 2021. Steroid cards also had not been issued to all patients. We discussed this with the practice to review these patients and increase the quality of documentation when completing a medicine review; including, safety netting advice. 12 out of 58 patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease 4 or 5 had not received blood monitoring within the last 9 months. The provider told us they had protocols in place to restrict prescriptions for non compliance of monitoring.

We reviewed the practice pathology inbox and identified 163 results were to be actioned on 30 July 2024. We asked the provider to review these which were completed 1 August 2024. The provider told us that all pathology results were reviewed the same day, however, we saw this did not always happen and discussed strengthening the process.

We saw non clinical staff were completing mental health and learning disability reviews that including ordering clinical testing. Care home feedback was they had contacted learning disability community teams to support reviews as the practice was not completing them. The provider told us that there was an agreed process in place for the local community teams to support care homes. The practice told us there had been some delayed patient referrals due to their in house referral system and the provider had been contacted to add a request pop up function to follow up patients as a reminder. We did not see a formal referral log despite the practice telling us there was one in place,

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

608 patients were diagnosed with Thyroidism and 99 patients had not had appropriate monitoring. We asked the provider to review these patients. There were 1379 patients diagnosed with diabetes. 208 of these patients had a blood test HBA1C of >75mmol/l. We sampled 2 patient records and saw 1 patient had a blood result of >100mmol/l in April 2024 and had not been followed up by the practice. The second sample record showed blood testing had been completed 10 days prior and the practice had not actioned an urgent review due to a high reading of >286mmol/l. We asked the provider to immediately review all these patients.

We saw during our clinical searches that the inhouse system used to contact patients process could be strengthened when recalling patients for drug review monitoring. The practice would send regular review invitations by text message, letter and telephone calls to patients. However, there was not always follow ups to regular ignored recall requests. There was a significant patient compliance issue within the patient demographic that was noted historically and the practice told us they were looking at new ways to try to increase patient compliance.

The practice processes for consent had no cause for concern during our assessment. Patients were informed of their choices and the practice would give all options available for people to make informed decisions for their care.