Archived: Thornley Street Medical Centre

Updated 17 March 2017

Thornley Street Medical Centre is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as a partnership. The practice is located very close to the city centre of Wolverhampton and has good transport links for patients travelling by public transport and by car. The practice is made up of six adapted terrace houses and provides services for patients over two floors. There is access for patients who use wheelchairs. There is also a lift for the consulting rooms upstairs if required.

Updated 17 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection at Thornley Street Medical Centre on 21 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Patients told us that they were able to get appointments when they needed them, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. We saw that all complaints, both written and verbal, were recorded, investigated and responded to. Learning from complaints was shared with staff.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• The practice had governance arrangements in place which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.
• The practice managed most risks well; although further action was needed to demonstrate the action taken to address safety alerts about medicines.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements:

• Introduce a formal recorded system to demonstrate the action taken to address alerts about medicines that may affect patients’ safety.
• Improve the uptake of cervical screening.
• Continue to identify carers and establish what support they need.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 17 March 2017

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

• The GPs, nurses and healthcare assistants had lead roles in chronic disease management.
• The GPs and nurses worked with relevant health care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care to patients with complex needs.
• Patients with long-term conditions received a health review of their condition at appropriate intervals.
• The practice had provided care plans for 2% of patients at risk of unplanned admission to hospital, many of which had long-term conditions.

Updated 17 March 2017

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

• Immunisation rates were broadly similar to 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.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 68% which was lower than the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average of 78% and England average of 82%. The practice had plans in place to address this.
• Children of all ages and children aged under the age of five were given priority and seen on the day. Appointments were available outside of school hours and urgent appointments were available for children.
• There was a small area of the waiting area with child friendly toys designated for children
• We saw positive examples of joint working with other professionals.

Updated 17 March 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

• There were fewer patients in this population group than local and national averages.
• The practice offered personalised care to meet the needs of the older patients in its population.
• Older patients who were housebound were able to request a home visit from a GP.
• Patients aged 75 years plus were offered annual health checks and allocated a named GP.
• Home visits and flexible appointments were available for older patients. Older patients were offered urgent and longer appointments for those with enhanced needs which gave them more time to discuss health issues with a clinician.

Updated 17 March 2017

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

• The practice maintained a register of 1500 students from a local university, which represented 15% of the practice population. This group of patients were from diverse international backgrounds. Some of the students were members of the virtual patient participation group and provided feedback to support the practice in meeting their health needs. Support provided included sexual health education and chlamydia screening.
• The practice was proactive in offering online services which included making online prescription and appointment requests.
• Patients were sent telephone texts to remind them about their appointment and to send test results.

• Patients were signposted to a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 17 March 2017

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

• 93% of patients with enduring poor mental health had a recent comprehensive care plan in place compared with the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and national averages of 88%.
• 89% of patients with dementia had a face to face review of their condition in the last 12 months compared the CCG average of 82% and national average of 84%.
• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• The practice worked with multi-disciplinary team in the case management of patients who experienced poor mental health, including those with dementia.

Updated 17 March 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice population of asylum seekers and new immigrants represented approximately 10% of the practice population. The patients were mainly young adults and more men than women. The practice worked closely with the local migrant and refuge centre to support the care of these patients.
• The practice offered patients whose first language was not English the use of interpreters daily. A weekly clinic supported by a Kurdish interpreter was carried out to support patients from a Kurdish background.
• The practice had a register of 66 patients with a learning disability and 87% had received an annual health assessment. The remaining patients had declined a health review.
• The practice had a register of patients receiving palliative care and had reviewed their care needs and updated their care plans.
• The practice had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.