Archived: Allington Clinic Also known as CMG Healthcare

Updated 18 April 2016

Allington Clinic is a GP practice based in Allington, Kent. There are 2,100 patients on the practice list.

There is a GP (female) who predominantly works at Allington Clinic, as well as GP partners from the Churchill Medical Group. The GPs are supported by a practice manager, a practice nurse and an administrative team.

Allington Clinic is open 8am to12pm and 2pm to 6pm Monday to Friday. Extended hours are available on Thursdays from 6pm to 8pm. There is an emergency telephone number for patients to be able to contact the practice during the hours of 12pm to 2pm and from 6pm to 6.30pm.

There are arrangements with other providers (Integrated Care 24) to deliver services to patients outside of the practice’s working hours.

The practice has a general medical service (GMS) contract and also offers enhanced services for example; minor operations and joint injections.

Services are delivered from;

• Allington Clinic, 26 Tichbourne Close, Allington, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 0RY

• Lockmeadow, 54-56 Tonbridge Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 8SE

Updated 18 April 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Allington Clinic on 2 February 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.

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles.

• All risks to patients were consistently assessed and well managed.

• Patients’ records that contained confidential information were held in a secure way so that only authorised staff could access them.

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them. Feedback from patients about their care was consistently and strongly positive as well as significantly better than local and national feedback averages.

• The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to help ensure that they met people’s needs. For example, in their professional interactions with a local nursing home, parents of and children on the ‘at risk’ register and those in vulnerable circumstances. There were regular six to eight weekly multidisciplinary meetings, as well as ‘as required’ meetings that were held if issues arose before the next scheduled meeting.

• Urgent appointments were available the same day and pre bookable appointments were available up to four weeks in advance.

• The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group (PPG). Patients who had had cause to complain were invited to join the PPG, in order to encourage them to be involved in the way the practice is operated.

• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.

• There was a business plan that was monitored, regularly reviewed and discussed with all staff. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff with evidence of team working across all roles.

• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.

• Governance and performance management arrangements were under constant review. The practice actively sought out and used data from wide range of sources.

We saw areas of outstanding practice including:

• The lead GP for safeguaring children knew the school nurse for each child and was aware of the issues at each school that the child attended, in order to help ensure they were aware of any mitigating factors which could have an impact on the child’s health.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 18 April 2016

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

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

• Patients with long-term conditions had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medicines 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.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

Updated 18 April 2016

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

• There were systems to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk. For example, children and young people who were on the ‘at risk register’. The practice ensured there was good coordination of care with other providers, such as the health visitor, midwife and health and social care coordinators.

• The practice ensured there was good coordination with school nurse. The lead GP for safeguarding children knew the school nurse for each child and was aware of the issues at each school that the child attended, in order to help ensure they were aware of any mitigating factors which could have an impact on the child’s health.

• Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations. Where families missed an appointment for a vaccination the practice followed this up by telephone.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• The practice had bettered the national and local results for the cervical cancer screening programme. They had conducted an audit in order to evidence where cervical screening may be an issue for some female patients. The audit showed that a number of patients declined due to their nationality. As a result, the practice produced leaflets written in different languages regarding the benefits of cervical screening and had liaised with local community leaders to raise awareness amongst patients in this population group.

Updated 18 April 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 patients in its population.

• The practice patient population included a high number of patients who were aged 75 years and over. This included patients who were in a nursing home, where the practice provides long term and end of life care. There were regular six to eight weekly multidisciplinary meetings, as well as ‘as required’ meetings that were held if issues arose before the next scheduled meeting. As well as, integrated care meetings involving health and social care services which supported information sharing about vulnerable, elderly or housebound patients. GPs gave their personal contact telephone numbers to patients and their families/carers who were receiving palliative care at home and were contactable in the event of a crisis.

• Repeat prescriptions were available over the telephone for older or housebound patients, who did not have, or who were not confident in using, the on-line repeat prescription service.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The practice provided un-funded care cover for 40 high dependency / end of life beds at a local nursing home. This included weekly ward rounds and daily visits when required.

Updated 18 April 2016

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 patient population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to help 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 18 April 2016

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

• Quality and Outcomes Framework system results show that 76.4% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was lower than the CCG average of 85.5% and the national average of 83.9%. The practice had carried out an audit to determine why there was a shortfall in their results.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

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

• The practice had a system to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

Updated 18 April 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 such as those who were elderly and lived alone or those with a learning disability.

• The practice had carried out annual health checks for all patients with a learning disability. They offered longer appointments for patients with complex needs that related to their circumstances as well as their health concerns. The practice identified that there were a number of Nepalese and Eastern European patients registered with them and had translation services available if needed.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. They 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.