Cranes Park Road Surgery

Updated 14 September 2017

Cranes Park Road Surgery is situated in Sheldon in South Birmingham. The practice has a list size of approximately 2,000 patients. The patient population age range is broadly in line with the national average, and there is a moderate level of social deprivation. T he practice holds a General Medical Services (GMS) contract with NHS England.

The clinical team consists of one GP and two practice nurses. The clinical team are supported by a practice manager and a team of reception and administrative staff.

The practice has a Patient Participation Group (PPG), a group of patients registered with a practice who work with the practice team to improve services and the quality of care.

The practice is open between 9am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday with appointments being offered during these times, except for Thursdays when the surgery is closed in the afternoon.

The practice does not provide out-of-hours services. Out of hours services are provided by Primecare. Information about this service is available at the practice, on the practice’s website and on an answerphone message.

Updated 14 September 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cranes Park Road Surgery on 25 May 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good but rated as requires improvement for providing effective services.

The full comprehensive report on the May 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cranes Park Road Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

On 28 July 2017 we carried out a desk-based focused review to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to address the areas we identified as requiring improvement at our previous inspection on 25 May 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had implemented a logging system for prescriptions. Patient records were updated when medicines were changed, and there was a system for repeat prescriptions which included reviews of patients’ medicines.

• The practice provided evidence of a programme of continuous audit. There was evidence of improved outcomes for patients, for example increased vaccinations for patients with chronic lung disease.

• The practice had implemented a more comprehensive recall system for patients with long-term conditions. The practice had worked with the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) information technology team to make changes to the recall process.

• The practice had taken action to review the process for increasing the uptake of childhood immunisations. This included reviewing patient notes where immunisations were not carried out, a detailed check of practice data, contacting parents or guardians of children not attending for their immunisations, and implementing improved data handling and sharing procedures.

• Child immunisation rates had improved. The practice had vaccinated 99% of children aged up to two years compared with the national average of 91%. 83% of children aged five years had received vaccinations which was the same as the CCG average of 83%.

• The practice had reviewed confidentiality in the reception area and had implemented some changes. This included providing staff training on confidentiality, providing access to a private room, introducing online appointments booking and prescription ordering, and transferring telephone calls to an office away from the reception area.

The practice is now rated as good for providing effective services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 14 September 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2016, we rated the practice as good for this population group. We did not review any evidence during our desk based review to alter this rating.

Updated 14 September 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2016, we rated the practice as requires improvement for this population group . This was because immunisation rates were lower than local and national averages for all standard childhood immunisations. For example, published data from 2014-15 showed:

• Childhood immunisation rates for the vaccinations given to under two year olds ranged from 53% to 93% compared with the CCG average of 80% to 95%.

• Childhood immunisation rates for the vaccinations given to five year olds ranged from 79% to 95% compared with the CCG average of 86% to 96%.

At our follow-up inspection on 28 July 2017 we found these arrangements and outcomes had significantly improved. The most recent published data, from 2015-16, showed:

• The practice had vaccinated 99% of children aged up to two years compared with the national average of 91%.

• 83% of children aged five years had received vaccinations compared with the CCG average also of 83%.

The practice provided evidence of what actions they had taken to review the process for increasing the uptake of childhood immunisations. This included reviewing patient notes where immunisations were not carried out, a detailed check of practice data, contacting parents or guardians of children not attending for their immunisations, and implementing improved data handling and sharing procedures.

The practice had also recruited an additional nurse in June 2016, which meant that additional nurse sessions helped them to improve the provision of childhood immunisations.

The practice is now rated as good for this population group.

Updated 14 September 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2016, we rated the practice as good for this population group. We did not review any evidence during our desk based review to alter this rating.

Updated 14 September 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2016, we rated the practice as good for this population group. We did not review any evidence during our desk based review to alter this rating.

Updated 14 September 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2016, we rated the practice as good for this population group. We did not review any evidence during our desk based review to alter this rating.

Updated 14 September 2017

Following our comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2016, we rated the practice as good for this population group. We did not review any evidence during our desk based review to alter this rating.