Archived: Plumley, Hassas, Rose, Helm, Earney & Andrews Also known as Student Medical Centre

Updated 18 April 2017

Roberts, McKenzie, Plumley, Hassas, Kirkland, Allen, Rose & Helm (Student Medical Centre) is part of Wandsworth Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and serves approximately 2,600 patients. All patients registered at this practice are students at the University of Roehampton. The practice is linked with another site called Putneymead Medical Centre. The practice has a single list for both sites. Patients from the Student Medical Centre are able to attend Putneymead Medical Centre if they require appointments outside the practice’s stated opening times. However patients of Putneymead Medical Centre cannot access appointments at the Student Medical Centre unless they are Students of Roehampton University.

Much of the practice’s performance data is connected with the main site practice. For example, national patient survey data and information from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) (QOF is a system intended to improve the quality of general practice and reward good practice). The practice has joint lists of patients who act as carers, have long term conditions and learning disabilities.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission for the following regulated activities maternity and midwifery services; family planning; treatment of disease, disorder or injury; surgical procedures and diagnostic and screening procedures.

The practice has three GPs, a physician’s associate and two nurses. The practice offers five GP sessions, three physicians associate sessions and seven nursing sessions per week at the practice with booked and emergency appointments five days per week.

The practice is open between 9 am and 4.30 pm Monday to Friday. Students can make appointments at Putneymead Medical Centre between 8 am and 9 am Monday to Friday and between 4.30 pm and 8 pm Monday to Thursday and between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm on Friday.

Roberts, McKenzie, Plumley, Hassas, Kirkland, Allen, Rose & Helm (Student Medical Centre) operates from Roehampton University, Froebel College, Old Court, London, Wandsworth

SW15 5PJ which are converted premises leased by Roehampton University. The premises are accessible to those with mobility difficulties.

Practice patients are directed to contact the local out of hours provider when the surgery is closed.

The practice operates under a Personal Medical Services (PMS) contract, and is signed up to a number of local and national enhanced services (enhanced services require an enhanced level of service provision above what is normally required under the core GP contract). These are: meningitis provision, alcohol support services, childhood vaccination and immunisation scheme, extended hours access, facilitating timely diagnosis and support for people with dementia, influenza and pneumococcal immunisations, learning disabilities, minor surgery, patient participation, rotavirus and shingles immunisation, unplanned admissions and out of area provision.

The practice is part of Wandsworth GP federation.

Updated 18 April 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Roberts, McKenzie, Plumley, Hassas, Kirkland, Allen, Rose & Helm (Student Medical Centre) on 24 November 2016. Due to unforeseen circumstances related to Care Quality Commission staffing we extended the inspection to a second visit on 6 January 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed; however, the business continuity plan did not contain emergency contact numbers for practice staff.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand, with the exception of translation services which were not advertised.
• Patient survey results indicated that patients found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments 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. However, responses to complaints did not contain details of external organisations to which complaints could be escalated.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Review and improve mechanisms for patients to provide feedback and take action in response to feedback from patients.

• Take steps to ensure that information regarding translation services are easily accessible to patients.

• Improve the identification of patients with caring responsibilities to be able to provide appropriate support and signposting

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 18 April 2017

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

• Clinical staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
• The practice used a computer system to access advice from secondary care to prevent admissions for patients with long term conditions.
• Performance for asthma was comparable to local and national averages.
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
• All these patients had a named GP and 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 18 April 2017

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 those living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, young people who had a high number of A&E attendances.

• The percentage of women who had received cervical screening was comparable to local and national averages.

Updated 18 April 2017

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 18 April 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health.

• The percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in the record, in the preceding 12 months was 94% compared with 90% in the Clinical Commissioning Group and 89% nationally.

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

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

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

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs.

• Putneymead Medical Centre provided an in-house counselling service which patients from this practice could be referred to.

Updated 18 April 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 those with a learning disability.

• Homeless patients were able to register at the practice.

• There were 42 patients on the joint learning disabilities register for Putneymead Medical Centre and Student Medical Centre. Thirty six of these patients had received an annual health checks. Patients were reviewed annually with a community learning disabilities team.

• The practice offered 40 minute appointments for patients with a learning disability. Annual health checks could be undertaken in patient’s homes if necessary.

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

• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and young people. 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.