Dr S Schulz & Partners Also known as St Richard's Road Surgery

Updated 3 October 2016

Dr S J T Williams & Partners (also known as St Richards Road Surgery and Golf Road Surgery) delivers services from two purpose built premises in Deal, Kent. There are approximately 9,600 patients on the practice list. The practice has more patients aged over 64 years and fewer patients aged 44 and under than national averages. The practice has more patients with long-term conditions registered on their list than local or national averages (practice 64%, local 60%, national 54%). The practice holds a General Medical Service contract and consists of five GP partners (three male and two female). There are four practice nurses (female) and four healthcare assistants (female). 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, dermatology, audiology, wound care and family planning. The practice had recognised there was a higher than average prevalence of patients with long-term conditions and had provided access to a health trainer.

The practice is open from 8am to 6.30pm. Extended hours are available from 6.30pm to 8pm alternate Mondays and Tuesdays and from 8.30am to 12pm Saturday mornings. The practice is collaborating with three local GP practices (The Deal Collaboration) and used their over 75’s funds to provide a paramedic practitioner to visit patients at home that were unable to attend the practice. An out of hours service is provided by Integrated Care 24 outside of the practices opening hours and 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 the main site at: St Richard's Road Surgery, Deal, Kent, CT14 9LF, a nd branch site at: 22 Golf Road, Deal, Kent, CT14 6PY.

Updated 3 October 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

In April 2016 a comprehensive inspection of Dr S J T Williams & Partners was conducted. The practice was rated as requires improvement for providing effective services and good for providing safe, caring, responsive and well led services. Overall the practice was rated as good. During that inspection we found that the practice was not compliant with providing mandatory training.

Following the inspection we asked the practice to provide an action plan detailing how they would improve on the area of concern. Subsequently, the practice provided evidence to show compliance with regulations.

We carried out a desk based inspection of Dr S J T Williams & Partners on 6 September 2016 to check that the practice had followed their plan and to confirm that they met the legal requirements.

We found the practice had made a significant improvement since our last inspection on 28 April 2016. Following the desk based review on 6 September we rated the practice as good for providing effective services. The overall rating for the practice remains good. For this reason we have only re-rated the location for the key question of effective. This report should be read in conjunction with the full inspection report of 28 April 2016. A copy of the last inspection report can be found on our website www.cqc.org.uk.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 6 July 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 were similar to the national average. For example, 90% of patients on the diabetes register had a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months (national average 88%).
• 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.
• The practice had access to a health trainer to support patients.

Updated 6 July 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 A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were similar to the national average.
• 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 84%, which was similar to the national average of 82%. There was a policy to offer telephone reminders for patients who did not attend for their cervical screening test.
• 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 6 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.
• The practice collaborated with three local GP practices (The Deal Collaboration) and used their over 75’s funds to provide a paramedic practitioner to visit patients at home that were unable to attend the practice.

Updated 6 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.
• The practice offered extended hours on alternate Monday and Tuesday evenings from 6.30pm to 8pm and Saturday mornings from 8.30am to 12pm for working patients who could not attend during normal opening hours

Updated 6 July 2016

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

• The practice had recognised in 2012 it was below average for some areas of dementia care and made improvements. Subsequently performance for dementia related indicators had been consistently better than the national average for several years. For example, 89% of patients diagnosed with dementia had received a face-to-face review in the preceding 12 months (national average 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 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 6 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 living in vulnerable circumstances including patients 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.