Hatch End Medical Centre

Updated 13 June 2016

Hatch End Medical Centre is situated at 577 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End, Pinner, HA5 4RD. The practice provides NHS primary care services through a General Medical Services (GMS) contract to approximately 4,300 people living in the Hatch End area of the London Borough of Harrow. The practice is part of the NHS Harrow Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

The practice population is representative of most age groups with a higher than national average number of people between 50 and 80 years of age. The ethnicity of the population is predominantly white British and the practice area is rated in the tenth least deprived decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). People living in more deprived areas tend to have greater need for health services.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures; treatment of disease, disorder or injury, maternity & midwifery services, surgical procedures and family planning.

The practice team consists of a female GP partner (five sessions), a male GP partner (seven sessions), a salaried GP (one session), two regular locum GPs (four sessions), two part time nurses, a healthcare assistant, a phlebotomist, a practice manager, eleven receptionists and there is also a health visitor who is an employee of the practice.

The practice opening hours are 7.30am to 7.30pm Monday, 7.30am to 6.30pm Tuesday and Thursday, 8.00am to 1.30pm Wednesday, and 8.00am to 6.30pm Friday. For out-of-hours (OOH) care including weekends and Wednesday afternoons patients are instructed to contact the NHS 111 service where they are directed to local OOH services.

Services the practice provides include family planning, maternity services, pre-conceptual advice, cervical smears, child health surveillance and immunisations, joint injections, travel immunisations, phlebotomy and chronic disease management.

The practice is a teaching practice for undergraduate medical students with one GP partner providing teaching clinics in dermatology and paediatrics.

Updated 13 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at 8.30am on 28 April 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 although actions highlighted in the practices’ legionella and fire risk assessments had not been completed

• 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 and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. However, some patients said it was often difficult to get an appointment with a preferred GP.
• The practice had adequate facilities and was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs although some patients said the practice was in need of an upgrade.
• 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 improvement are:

• Ensure actions highlighted in the legionella and fire risk assessments are completed.
• Develop a formal strategy to deliver the practice vision.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 13 June 2016

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

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was above CCG and national averages. However, although exception reporting was higher than average the practice was taking steps to address this.
• 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 13 June 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 comparable to others 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.
• The percentage of women aged 25-64 whose notes record that a cervical screening test had been performed in the preceding five years was 80%, which was in line with the national average of 82%.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

Updated 13 June 2016

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

• The practice had a higher than national average number of older patients with 10% of the practice population over 75 years.

• 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.
• The practice engaged in the unplanned admissions enhanced service to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions for older people. The practice had completed care plans for 4% of at risk patients which was above the CCG target of 2%.

Updated 13 June 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. 

Updated 13 June 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 had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months (2014/15), which was above the CCG average of 86% and the national average of 84%.
• 96% of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in the record, in the preceding 12 months (2014/15), which was above the CCG average of 91% and the national average of 88%.
• 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 13 June 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 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.