Aspley Medical Centre

Updated 25 February 2016

Aspley Medical Centre provides a range of medical services to approximately 7000 patients living in the Aspley area of Nottingham. The practice is in the Nottingham City CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group).

The practice holds a Personal Medical Services (PMS) contract to provide GP services.

Data from Public Health England shows the practice serves an area where income deprivation affecting children and older patients people is higher than the England average. Additionally, the area has a higher than average number of patients aged 20 years to 34 years, with more children and young adults under 18 years of age.

The practice has a team of six GPs meeting patients’ needs. Three GPs (one male and two female) are partners and they hold managerial and financial responsibility for the practice. Three salaried GPs (two male and one female) are employed. In addition, there is one nurse practitioner, two practice nurses and two health care assistants. A practice manager assistant and team of nine reception/administration staff support the practice manager.

Patients using the practice have access to a range of services and visiting healthcare professionals. These included health visitors, midwives, and a physiotherapist, smoking cessation advisor and a specialist clinic for patients with alcohol dependency.

Appointments are available Monday to Friday from 8.30am to 6.30pm. Appointments late in the afternoon are offered for those patients that are working and cannot attend earlier in the day.

Outside of practice opening hours Nottingham Emergency Medical Service provides a service. Details of how to access emergency and non-emergency treatment and advice is available within the practice and on its website.

Updated 25 February 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Aspley Medical Centre on 6 January 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows;

• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and there was continuity of care. The GP surgeries were flexible and ensured that patients who requested to be seen on the same day were.

• The practice had good facilities including disabled access. There was a lift for those who were not able to manage the stairs.

• Information about services and how to complain was available. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service, including having a patient participation group (PPG).

• The practice proactively sought to educate their patients to manage their medical conditions and improve their lifestyles by having additional in house services available.These included visiting healthcare professionals such as a physiotherapist and community paediatrician.

• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety for example, infection control procedures.

• Staff identified a clear leadership structure, good team work, and felt supported by management.

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Ensure systems are in place to proactively identify and support carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 25 February 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 but data showed patient outcomes were mixed when compared to other practices in the locality.

All these patients had a structured annual review to check that their health and medication needs were being met. Protocols based on local guidelines allowed the nurse with prescribing qualification to make changes to medication, without the patient always needing to make a second doctor’s appointment. Longer appointments were available if required. Practice staff followed up patients by telephone who did not attend their appointments.

Updated 25 February 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 patients who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were in line with local averages for all standard childhood immunisations. Young children were given priority appointments for urgent needs and this ensured that children with ailments such as ear ache did not wait too long.

The rate of teenage pregnancies was high within the local area; the practice proactively offered routine contraceptive services and was a centre for the C-card scheme. This scheme provides young people with free condoms.

Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors, and school nurses.

Updated 25 February 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. Home visits were available for those unable to attend the practice. Continuity of care was maintained for older people through a stable GP workforce and personalised patient centred care. The practice provided dedicated weekly visits to a local care home ensuring that patients’ health care was managed proactively.

Phlebotomy services were provided at the surgery enabling patients to have blood samples taken without the need to travel to the community service.

We saw evidence that the practice was working to the Gold Standards Framework for those patients with end of life care needs.

Updated 25 February 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, including 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 reflected the needs for this age group. The practice did not restrict patients to certain appointment times to attend for their annual reviews; patients who worked were able to book at times that were convenient to them. Telephone consultations were available for those patients who wished to seek advice from a GP. NHS health checks were available.

Updated 25 February 2016

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

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. The number of recorded care plans was low, however, we reviewed records and were confident that this was due to low recording/coding and not inadequate patient monitoring or follow up.

Staff told us that 35% of patients with a diagnosis of dementia had received advance care planning, including end of life care and had received an annual review.

Same day appointments and telephone triage with a GP was offered to ensure that any health needs were quickly assessed for this group of patients.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff had received training on how to care for patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 25 February 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, and those with a learning disability. It offered longer appointments and carried out annual health checks.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable patients. We saw the practice provided vulnerable patients with information about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse or neglect 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.

Reception staff were intuitive to the needs of this group of patients and demonstrated that they had a personalised approach to helping them. For example, patients that had been identified as vulnerable, and did not make appointments but presented at the practice when in need of medical care were seen at the time by a GP. This ensured the patient had access to immediate health care to keep them safe without needing to attend at another time.