Archived: Brockley Road Medical Centre

Updated 27 March 2017

The practice is part of the London Borough of Lewisham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and provides primary medical services through a Personal Medical Services (PMS) contract with NHS England to around 5000 patients.

Brockley Road Medical Centre is located on the ground floor of a converted residential property in Brockley, South London. The practice address is 465 Brockley Road, London, Lewisham, SE4 2JP.

The practice has five male and one female GP partners, two practice nurses, a healthcare assistant, a practice manager and six reception / administrative staff.

The practice is a teaching and training practice for medical students and GP trainees.

The practice is open and provides appointments between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Extended hours appointments are offered between 6.30pm until 8pm every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

South London Doctors on Call provide out of hours cover from 6.30pm until 8am and at weekends.

The practice has a lower number of patients aged between 55 and 85 and higher than average number of patients aged between 25 and 39 compared to the national average. Male average life expectancy is 79 years old compared to the CCG average of 78 and the same as the national average. Female average life expectancy is 85 years old compared to the CCG average of 82 and national average of 83. The practice locality is in the 5th least deprived decile out of 10 on the deprivation scale.

The practice is registered to provide the following regulated activities; Family planning, Maternity and midwifery services, Diagnostic and screening procedures, Treatment of disease, disorder or injury and Surgical procedures.

Brockley Road Medical Centre was not inspected under the previous inspection regime.

Updated 27 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Brockley Road Medical Centre on 8 November 2016. 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.
• 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients said they 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.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make an improvement are:

• Review the low patient survey scores relating to nurse consultations and identify measures for improvement.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 27 March 2017

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.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was similar to the national average. The percentage of patients whose blood test results indicated well controlled diabetes in the last 12 months was 75% compared to the CCG average of 70% and national average of 78%.

• 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 27 March 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 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.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 82%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 81% and the national average of 82%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 27 March 2017

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

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

All patients over 75 years of age had a named GP and were given access to a priority telephone number to call when access to urgent medical help was necessary.

Updated 27 March 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.

• The practice offered extended hours from 6.30pm until 8pm every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Updated 27 March 2017

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

• At 90% the practice performance for mental health related indicators was similar to the CCG average of 87% and national average of 90%. The practice exception reported 0% compared to the CCG average of 6% and national average of 10%.

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

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

• 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 and dementia.

Updated 27 March 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.

• 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 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 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 allowed homeless patients to use the practice address as their registered address in order to access other care and services.