Archived: Collingwood Family Practice

Updated 27 March 2017

The Collingwood Family Practice is part of a wider group of 39 GP practices registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the service provider Phoenix Primary Care (part of The Practice Group). Collingwood Family Practice is set in a community centre with close links to public transport and ample parking and provides care to approximately 5195 patients under a primary medical services (PMS) contract.

The practice list has an above average number of working age (40-54) patients. The level of deprivation within the practice population is below the national average with the practice. Income deprivation affecting children and older people are below the local and national average.

The clinical team comprises four GPs (two male, two female), an advanced nurse practitioner, two practice nurses and two phlebotomists. The clinical team is supported by a practice manager, and a team of reception and administrative staff.

The main surgery is open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Consulting times are from 8.30am to 12.45pm each morning and 1.30pm to 6pm each afternoon. For patients who find it difficult to attend during normal working hours the practice offers evening appointments on a Tuesday and Thursday from 6.30pm till 8pm and booked appointments on Saturday mornings between 9am and 12pm. The practice has opted out of providing out-of-hours services to its own patients.

Updated 27 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Collingwood Family Practice

On 17 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 within the practice. Effective systems were in place to report, record and learn from significant events both locally and within the provider group. Learning was shared with staff and external stakeholders where appropriate.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.

• Outcomes for patients were generally above or in line with local and national averages.

• Training was provided for staff which equipped them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

• Patients said they were treated with compassion and dignity, and staff were supportive and respectful in providing care, involving them in care and decisions about their treatment.

• There was a strong emphasis on performance and meeting targets to ensure a high level of service to patients, which was demonstrated by the high QOF results (100%) and performance within the provider group.

• Patients told us they were able to get an appointment with a GP when they needed one, with urgent appointments available on the same day.

• 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 and learning from complaints was shared with staff and stakeholders.

• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Services were designed to meet the needs of patients.

• 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.

There was one area where the practice should make improvements:

• The practice should continue to make efforts to identify and support carers within their patient population

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.

• Clinical staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority in addition to regular monitoring of patients with long term conditions.
• Performance for diabetes related indicators was 100% which was 7.3% above the CCG average and 10.1% above the national average. The exception reporting rate for diabetes indicators was 11.7% which was above the CCG average of 9.4% but in line with the national average of 11.6%.
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
• All these patients had a named GP and were offered a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met.
• For patients with the most complex needs, practice staff worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care. Regular multidisciplinary meetings were hosted by the practice.

Updated 27 March 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• Systems were in place to identify children at risk. The practice had a child safeguarding lead and staff were aware of who they were.
• 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, had missed appointments or immunisations. The GP lead for safeguarding liaised with other health and care professionals, such as children’s services to discuss children at risk.
• Immunisation rates were higher than local averaged for all standard childhood immunisations and the practice worked with health visitors to follow up children who did not attend for immunisations.
• The practice ran sexual health clinics.
• Urgent appointments were available on a daily basis to accommodate children who were unwell.

Updated 27 March 2017

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

• Named GPs developed care plans with the involvement of the patient to ensure their preferences were met.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs which included nurse appointments and flu vaccinations.
• The practice had combined a flu event with an opportunity for patients to engage with the fire service and take up home safety checks.
• Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients for conditions commonly found in older people, including rheumatoid arthritis and heart failure were in line with or above local and national averages.
• The practice were working with the community centre, based in the same building, to begin work around loneliness in older people.

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.
• Appointments could be made and cancelled on line as well as management of repeat prescriptions.
• The practice ran healthy lifestyle clinics.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 84.7%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 81.1% and the national average of 81.5%.
• The practice had listened to patient feedback when organising extended hours appointment and as a result offered a Saturday morning clinic, in addition to two evenings through to 8pm, for those who were unable to attend in work hours.

Updated 27 March 2017

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

• Performance for mental health related indicators was 100% which was 5.6% above the CCG average and 7.2% above the national average. The exception reporting rate for mental health related indicators was 9.7% which was above the CCG average of 6% but below the national average of 11.3%.
• The number of patients with a diagnosis of dementia who had their care reviewed in a face-to-face review in the last 12 months was 92.3% which was 8.2% above the local average and 8.5% above the national average. This was achieved with an exception reporting rate of 3.7%, 3.1% lower than the CCG average and 3.1% below the national average.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with 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 those with a learning disability.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability and for those who required it.
• Some practice staff had participated in a homeless awareness night which was run by a local homeless charity based in Birmingham. This had led to collections and donations for the charity and given staff additional understanding of homelessness.
• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients. Regular multidisciplinary meetings were hosted by the practice. In addition the practice held regular meetings to discuss patients on their palliative care register.
• 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.