Long Furlong Medical Partnership Also known as Long Furlong Medical Centre

Updated 3 July 2017

Dr E. A. Allan & Partners (also known as Long Furlong Medical Centre) provides GP services to approximately 9074 patients in a suburban area of Abingdon in Oxfordshire. The locality has a low level of deprivation, with a higher working age population compared to the national average. Over 80% of the population are under 60 years old and are predominantly white British.

The practice has six GP partners (four female and two male).There are three practice nurses, an advanced nurse practitioner, a health care assistant, a phlebotomist, a practice manager and nine members of the administration team.

Dr E. A. Allan & Partners is located on two floors of the same building. The ground floor has six GP consulting rooms and two nurse treatment rooms. There is step free access to the main entrance, parking (including disabled parking spaces) and automatic entrance doors. The practice has been extended over the years to maximise space.

The practice is open between 8.30am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Monday to Friday between 8am and 8:30am the surgery offers an emergency only telephone line. Extended hours appointments are offered across six GP practices in the area who have formed a federation (including with Dr E. A. Allan and partners). Appointments are available every weekday until 7.30pm and every Saturday and Sunday, for working patients who are unable to attend during core hours.

The practice has opted out of providing Out of Hours services to their patients. The Out of Hours service is provided by Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and is accessed by calling NHS 111. Advice on how to access the Out of Hours service is contained in the practice leaflet, on the patient website and on a recorded message when the practice is closed.

Dr E. A. Allan & Partners is registered to provide services from the following location:

Long Furlong Medical Centre, 45 Loyd Close, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 1XR.

Updated 3 July 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr E. A. Allan & Partners on 29 September 2016. The practice was rated as inadequate for well led, requires improvement for safe and effective and good for caring and responsive. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the September 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr E. A. Allan & Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

An announced comprehensive inspection was undertaken on 31 May 2017. We found significant improvements and overall the practice is now rated as good. Specifically, we have rated the practice good for the provision of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. All population groups have also been rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety. In particular, the practice had reviewed how safety alerts were received into the practice, had clarified the role of the chaperone and who could undertake these duties, reviewed the training requirements and updates for staff, ensured blank prescriptions were stored and logged appropriately, had purchased data loggers for the fridges, commenced recording all samples sent for cervical screening and ensured patient group directions were administered in line with current legislation.
• Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients we spoke with said they were able to make an appointment with a named GP, although the waiting time could be up to six weeks. Urgent appointments were available the same day.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
• The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

However, there was one area of practice where the provider should make improvements;

• Ensure carer status of patients is clearly indicated to clinicians.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 3 July 2017

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

• Nursing staff had lead roles in long-term disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
• The practice showed us their latest submitted data to the Quality and Outcomes Framework for 2016/17 which showed the practice had achieved 91% for their Diabetes indicators. This was the same as the previous year and was comparable to local and national averages.
• The practice QOF achievement for 2016/17 was 98% with 8% exception reporting. These figures had improved from 2015/16 when their overall achievement was 97% and clinical exceptions were 9%.
• The practice followed up on patients with long-term conditions discharged from hospital and ensured that their care plans were updated to reflect any additional needs.
• There were emergency processes for patients with long-term conditions who experienced a sudden deterioration in health.
• All these patients had a named GP and there was a system to recall patients for 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 3 July 2017

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

• From the sample of documented examples we reviewed we found 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 had a high number of accident and emergency (A&E) attendances.
• Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.
• Patients told us, on the day of inspection, that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• The practice worked with midwives, health visitors and school nurses to support this population group. For example, in the provision of ante-natal, post-natal and child health surveillance clinics.
• The practice held a contract with a local boarding school for young males aged between 13 and 18 years. GPs held a clinic at the school every weekday and supplied pitch side medical cover for rugby matches.
• The practice had emergency processes for acutely ill children and young people and for acute pregnancy complications.

Updated 3 July 2017

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

• Staff were able to recognise the signs of abuse in older patients and knew how to escalate any concerns.
• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older patients in its population.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.
• The practice identified at an early stage older patients who may need palliative care as they were approaching the end of life. It involved older patients in planning and making decisions about their care, including their end of life care.
• The practice followed up on older patients discharged from hospital and ensured that their care plans were updated to reflect any extra needs.
• Where older patients had complex needs, the practice shared summary care records with local care services. The practice had a switchboard bypass telephone access for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.
• Older patients were provided with health promotional advice and support to help them to maintain their health and independence for as long as possible. For example, the practice had appointed a member of staff as a care co-ordinator to assist patients with appointments, signposting to other services and supporting older patients with their care needs.

Updated 3 July 2017

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

• The needs of these populations had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible and flexible. The practice was part of a federation of six GP practices locally and offered evening and weekend clinics on a rotational basis. Patients unable to attend during core working hours could make an appointment to see a GP at whichever of the five practices was open that evening or weekend.
• 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 3 July 2017

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

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients living with dementia.
• 90% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the year 2015/16, which was higher than the CCG average of 82% and national average of 78%.
• The practice specifically considered the physical health needs of patients with poor mental health and dementia. The practice offered counselling services onsite for patients, which reduced the anxiety associated with travelling for appointments.
• The practice had a system for monitoring repeat prescribing for patients receiving medicines for mental health needs.
• The practice provided the inspection team with their latest Quality and Outcomes Framework data for 2016/17. They had achieved 100% for their mental health indicators which had increased from 98% the previous year.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those living with dementia.
• Patients at risk of dementia were identified and offered an assessment.
• The practice had information available for patients experiencing poor mental health about how they could 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.
• Staff interviewed had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 3 July 2017

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. However, whilst the practice held a register of known carers, we noted there were no computer system alerts to identify carer status of patients.
• End of life care was delivered in a coordinated way which took into account the needs of those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.
• The practice had information available for vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• Staff interviewed knew how to recognise signs of abuse in children, young people and adults whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. They 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.