Newton Place Surgery

Updated 12 December 2016

Newton Place Surgery delivers services purpose built premises in Faversham, Kent. Most patient areas are on the ground floor and are accessible to patients with mobility issues, as well as parents with children and babies. There are approximately 16000 patients on the practice list. The practice has slightly more female patients aged over 85 years. However, there are also slightly more patients in paid work or full time education than national and local averages (practice average 65%, clinical commissioning group (CCG) average 60% and national average 62%).

The practice holds a Personal Medical Service contract and consists of 7 GPs partners (three female and four male) and five salaried GPs (four female and one male). Newton Place Surgery is training practice so, alongside their clinical roles, the GPs provide training and mentorship for trainee GPs (called registrars). There are currently two GP registrars working at the practice (female). There are three nurse practitioners (female), five nurses (female), four healthcare assistant (female) and two phlebotomists (phlebotomists take blood samples).

The GPs, nurses and healthcare assistants are supported by a practice manager and a team of administration and reception staff. A wide range of services and clinics are offered by the practice including: asthma, diabetes, minor surgery, antenatal and leg ulcer clinics.

The practice is open from 8am to 8pm Mondays and Thursdays and 7.30 to 6.30 Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Morning appointments are from 9am to 11.30am and afternoon appointments are from 3pm to 5.40pm.

When the practice is closed, an out of hour’s service is provided by Prime care. There is information available to patients on how to access this at the practice, in the practice information leaflet and on the website.

Services are delivered from:

Newton Road, Faversham, Kent, ME13 8FH.

Updated 12 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Newton Place Surgery on 20 October 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 for reporting and recording significant events. Learning and outcomes from these events was systematically shared throughout the practice.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. The practice had identified some areas of infection prevention and control that required improvements and at the time of inspection had begun to implement a range of improvements.
• 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.
• Patients told us on the day of the inspection that they were able to get appointments when they needed them.
• 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.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• The practice was a member of Encompass (a multi-centred community venture consisting of 16 other GP practices, the CCG, three other NHS trusts, the local council and local social services, the local hospice and numerous voluntary groups), which aimed at providing services in the community and reducing the need for patients to travel to secondary care.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
• Members of the PPG told us they felt very involved in running the practice and had worked in collaboration with the practice management and staff to formulate and implement the Practice’s Vision Statement.
• The practice was forward thinking and had a systematic approach to working with staff, the PPG and other organisations to bring research in to primary care as well as developing and implementing a comprehensive range of services.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• The practice should continue with their plans to provide the infection control lead with additional relevant infection control training and carry out an infection prevention and control risk assessment.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 12 December 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.

• Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes were comparable to local and national averages.

• 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.
• Patients had access to tissue viability and catheter clinics.

Updated 12 December 2016

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

• There were systems 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 Accident & Emergency (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.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 83%, which was comparable to the national average of 82%.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. In a review of the appointments system in 2015, the practice found that a high number of school-age children required an appointment after 3.30pm.In response the practice added urgent care drop-in clinics every day from 3.30pm.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.
• New parents were sent a card on the birth of their baby with details of their post-natal check, baby’s first immunisations and information about local services for young families.

Updated 12 December 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 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. For example, there was a warfarin service for patients who needed it but were not able to come in to the practice.

• Patients had access to geriatrician led clinics (geriatricians are doctors who specialise in the care of elderly patients).
• Through the Encompass collaboration patients requiring urgent home visits had access to a paramedic practitioner.

Updated 12 December 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.
• The practice told us there were limited family planning services in the local area and in response planned to start a ‘drop-in contraception clinic’ in November to run alongside the existing “coil and implant clinic”.
• There was a text message reminder service where patients received a confirmation text of their appointment on the day it was booked and a reminder text the day before they were due to attend.
• Alongside the patient participation group (PPG) meetings, there was a virtual PPG and Virtual PPG notice board for patients that might not be able to come to PPG meetings due to work commitments but still wished to participate in PPG activities.

Updated 12 December 2016

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

• 83% of patients diagnosed with dementia had received a face to face care review meeting in the last 12 months, which was similar to the local average of 80% and the national average of 84%.
• Performance for mental health related indicators were comparable with local and national averages.
• 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 to follow up patients who had attended emergency A&E where they might have been experiencing poor mental health.
• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.
• The practice collaborated with the local social care partnership trust to provide regular dementia clinics so that patients did not have to travel to access care and support.

Updated 12 December 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 palliative care, mental health, carers 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.