Selborne Road Medical Centre

Updated 20 March 2017

We have to include tehe background

Updated 20 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this practice on 17 February 2016. The practice was rated as requires improvement for ‘safe’. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice sent us and Action Plan to state what they would do to improve their service. 

We carried out an announced focused inspection on 16 February 2017 to check that the practice had followed their action plan. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Selborne Road Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically,following At our the focused inspection on the 16 February 2017, we found the practice to be good for providing safe services.

Our key findings across all the areas which required improvement were as follows:

• We saw evidence that an infection prevention and control audit had been carried out and there was a completed action plan in place.
• We saw evidence that regular fire alarm testing had been carried out.
• We checked a number of staff files which identified that all relevant staff and in particular those undertaking chaperoning duties had received current  DBS checks.
• We saw that the practice cleaning schedule had been updated and included relevant detail in order to monitor completed tasks.
• A risk assessment was in place for Legionella testing.
• A risk assessment of the decision not to have a defibrillator on the premises was in place.  to inform staff the the actions to take because there was no defibrillator on the premises.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 5 April 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.
• Performance for diabetes related indicators was comparable to the national average. For example, the percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months was 85% (national average 88%).
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when required .
• All the 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 5 April 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 Accident & Emergency (A&E) attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.
• The percentage of patients on the asthma register, who had an asthma review in the the preceding 12 months that includes an assessment of asthma control was 86% and higher than the national average of 75%.
• It was reported to us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals; we saw evidence to confirm this.
• The percentage of women aged 25-64 whose notes recorded that a cervical screening test has been performed in the preceding 5 years was 96% and higher than the national average of 81%.
• 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, health visitors and school nurses. 

Updated 5 April 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.
• The practice provides care to a local nursing home and carries out a ward round each week.

Updated 5 April 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 5 April 2016

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

• 95% of patients diagnosed as living with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is higher than the national average of 84%.
• The percentage of patients with schizopherenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who have a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in their records in the preceding 12 months was 100% and higher than the national average of 88%.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those living with dementia.
• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients living with dementia.
• The practice had discussions with 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 A&E where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.
• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and those living with dementia.

Updated 5 April 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 people, travellers and those with a learning disability.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
• The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.
• 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.