Woodview Medical Centre

Updated 2 March 2018

Dr Boteju and Partners also known as Woodview Medical Centre situated at Holmcross Road, Thorplands, Northampton, Northamptonshire is a GP practice which provides primary medical care for approximately 9,890 patients living in the Northampton East and South area. There is moderate level of deprivation in the area mainly relating to low income.

Dr Boteju and Partners provide primary care services to local communities under a General Medical Services (GMS) contract, which is a nationally agreed contract between general practices and NHS England. The practice population is predominantly white British along with a small ethnic population of Asian, Afro Caribbean, mixed race and Eastern European origin.

The practice currently has three GPs partners and two salaried GPs (all males). There are two GP trainees (both females) and one male medical graduate currently undergoing a placement in primary care. There are two nurse prescribers two practice nurses and two specialist nurses (diabetes and mental health) who are supported by a health care assistant. There is practice manager who is supported a team of administrative and reception staff. The local NHS trust provides health visiting and community nursing services to patients at this practice.

There is a car park outside the surgery with adequate disabled parking available.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. The practice is also open during the second Saturday morning of each month between 8.30 and 12 noon for pre-booked appointments only.

When the practice is closed services are provided by Integrated Care 24 Limited via 111.

Updated 2 March 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Boteju and Partners on 18 January 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. Patients’ needs were assessed using clinical templates that had been formulated by the lead GP using best practice guidance such asthose provided by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and locally by the clinical commissioning group (CCG). We found that these templates aided appropriate monitoring of treatment and care provision.

• A programme of clinical audit was in place that demonstrated quality improvement.

• There was a process to identify, understand, monitor and address current and future risks including risks to patient safety. However we found that some processes related to employment checks and record keeping of identified risks needed improvement.

• GP patient survey results indicated patients were positive about the care received, practice opening times, the ability to get an appointment and the ease of being seen on time. However it also noted dissatisfaction in relation to getting through to the practice by phone and with the experience of making an appointment.

• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

• Performance for antibiotic items prescribed, that could be used when others had failed, as a percentage of similar antibiotics prescribed, were lower than average compared against the local CCG and national averages. This was in line with national guidance of using these medicines sparingly, to avoid drug-resistant bacteria developing.

• Staff had lead roles within the practice with a strong focus on patient centred care.

• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

• Feedback from patients we spoke with and from the CQC comments cards was positive regarding the care received at the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Complete the review of the immunisation status of clinical and non clinical staff and ensure a documented process to evidence compliance.
• Develop a more formal approach to employment checks and staff induction.
• Continue to monitor and ensure improvement to national GP patient survey results, and improve patient experience of getting through to the practice by phone and with making an appointment.
• Improve record keeping of identified risks, for example control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 28 January 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. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medication 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.

Updated 28 January 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, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for 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. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 28 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 28 January 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 population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to 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 28 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health including people with dementia). They had developed individual care plans for patients with mental health needs which contained comprehensive details to help them to manage their condition. The practice provided a consulting room for a mental health nurse and a counsellor to see patients.

Updated 28 January 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. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and 95% of these patients had received a follow-up. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It 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. The practice had good communication and relationships with the health visitors based at the practice.