Burngreave Surgery

Updated 21 July 2016

Burngreave Surgery is located in a converted house near the centre of Sheffield. It has two branches, The Cornerstone Building, 1-3 Burngreave Road, Sheffield and Herries Road Surgery, 450 Herries Road, Sheffield.

The practice provides Personal Medical Services (PMS) for 6,478 patients in the NHS Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area. They have a higher than average population of children under under 15 years old and a higher than average population of adults age 20 to 30 years old.

The practice catchment area has been identified as one of the first most deprived areas nationally.

There are two full time GP partners, one male, one female and one female part time salaried GP. The practice employs four practice nurses and two healthcare assistants. These are supported by a practice manager and a team of reception and administrative staff.

Burngreave Surgery is open from 8.30am and 6pm, Monday to Friday with the exception of Thursday when they close at 1.pm.

The practice offers daily GP telephone triage with access to same day appointments. There are also prebookable appointments through the week. Extended hours with GP and nurse appointments are offered on Tuesday evenings at the Cornerstone building until 8.30pm.

When the practice is closed calls were answered by the out-of-hours service which is accessed via the surgery telephone number or by calling the NHS 111 service. 

As part of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009: Regulation 15 we noted GP partners registered with the Care Quality Commission as the partnership did not reflect the GP partners currently at the practice. We were told this would be addressed following the inspection and the appropriate applications and notifications submitted.

Updated 21 July 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Burngreave Surgery on 6 June 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.
• 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 with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• 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.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

The practice had a gym at one of their branch sites situated across the road from the practice where patients could be referred for six week exercise courses with a health trainer.

One of the practice nurses had been into local schools discussing the importance of cytology screening with teenage girls, once they reach the age of 25 years.

One of the GPs had visited the Somali community centre to discuss various health problems.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

To develop an action plan to address survey results for telephone access.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 21 July 2016

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

• Nursing staff had lead roles in long term condition management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• Performance in diabetes indicators at 99.7% was higher than the CCG average of 90% and national average of 89%.

• 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 21 July 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 and emergency attendances.

• Immunisation rates were slightly lower than CCG average for all standard childhood immunisations. For example, immunisation rates in children under two years ranged between 86% and 91% compared to the CCG average of 90% to 96%.

• Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this.

• The percentage of women aged 25 to 64 years who had attended for a cervical screening test within the last five years was 72%. This was slightly lower than the CCG average of 75% and the national average of 74%.

• One of the practice nurses had been into local schools discussing the importance of cytology screening with teenage girls once they reach the age of 25 years.

• 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, district nurses, community dieticians, health visitors and school nurses.

• The practice had a larger than average child population, 26% of patients registered at the practice were under 15 years old. 42% of the children in the practice catchment area were living inpoverty as measured by HM Revenue and Customs. The practice had developed good communication with social services and community support workers.

Updated 21 July 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.

Updated 21 July 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 21 July 2016

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

• Performance in mental health indicators at 99% was higher than the CCG average of 95% and the national average of 93%.
• The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those living with dementia.
• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients living with dementia.
• Patients experiencing poor mental health had been advised 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 21 July 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 whose circumstances could make them vulnerable, including homeless people 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 those whose cirumstances may make them vulnerable .

• Patients were informed about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in 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.

• 62% of patients registered at the practice did not speak English as their first language. The practice had good relationships with interpreters and used a telephone interpreter service when necessary to ensure informed consent was given and advice and instructions understood. Because of the diverse mix of languages spoken by these patients it was not possible to supply leaflets in all languages.