Archived: Wayside Medical Practice

Updated 23 May 2016

Wayside Medical Practice is based at Kings Road, Horley, Surrey RH6 7AD.

The practice is a purpose built building over two levels. The ground floor is for clinical use and the first floor is used for administration staff. There are three consulting rooms and three treatment rooms.

The practice is staffed by one GP (male) who works eight sessions each week. He is supported by three long term locums GPs, two female and one male who carry out a total of seven sessions between them each week. In addition there is one part time practice nurse, one part time health care assistant, one full time practice manager supported by four part time medical receptionists and a practice secretary.

The patient list size is 4,000 and the practice has a General Medical Service contract.

Statistics show little income deprivation among the registered population. The registered population is lower than average for 10-29 year olds, and higher than average for those aged 55 and above.

The practice is open between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday. The practice does not offer extended hours.

Appointments are available from 8am to 11.30am every morning and 3pm to 5pm every afternoon.

When the practice is closed out of hours services are provided by IC24.

At the time of the inspection the practice was not correctly registered with the Care Quality Commission, however we have seen evidence since the inspection that this is being corrected.

Updated 23 May 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wayside Medical Practice on 26 January 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 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.
• Patients said they did not always find it easy to make an appointment with a named GP; however there were some urgent appointments available the same day.
• Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was worse than local and national averages.
• 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 sought feedback from staff and patients, but it did not demonstrate that it acted on patient feedback regarding access to the service.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice supported a high security 52 bedded unit for young male adults detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The lead GP provided the service with a weekly ward round and had undertaken enhanced training to support the role. We saw positive examples of patient outcomes and of multi-disciplinary team working with both the private provider holding the NHS contract for the unit and the practice team.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Continue to monitor feedback from patients about access to the service.
• Review the level of exception reporting in the Quality and Outcomes framework ( QOF)
• Review the practice performance in QOF for monitoring the blood pressure of patients with hypertension and for patients with diabetes.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 23 May 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.
• 94% of patients on the diabetes register had their last total cholesterol measured at 5 mmol/l or less (in the preceding 12 months), which is above the national average of 81%.
• 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 23 May 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.
• 100% of patients diagnosed with asthma, on the register, had an asthma review in the last 12 months.
• 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.
• 84% of eligible female patients had a cervical screening test which was above 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 and health visitors.

Updated 23 May 2016

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 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.

Updated 23 May 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. For example, the practice offered patients access to on line appointments and electronic prescribing services.

Updated 23 May 2016

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

• 100% of patients diagnosed with dementia that had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was better than the national average data of 84%.
• 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.
• The practice provided medical care at a low and medium secure hospital for young male adults detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Updated 23 May 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 patients, travellers and those with a learning disability.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams 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.