Background to this inspection
Updated
21 March 2019
The Oakwood Surgery is located in a purpose built facility near the St Wilfred’s shopping complex. The surgery has good transport links and there is a pharmacy located nearby.
The provider is registered with CQC to deliver the Regulated Activities; diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. At the time of inspection the practice were not registered to provide maternity and midwifery services. We have asked the practice to review if they need to be registered.
The Oakwood Surgery is situated within the Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and provides services to 5635 patients under the terms of a general medical services (GMS) contract. This is a contract between general practices and NHS England for delivering services to the local community.
The practice has three GP partners who registered with the CQC in April 2013. The practice has two regular female and one male GP, three nurses and two health care assistants. Non clinical support is provided by a practice manager and an assistant practice manager and an experienced administration/reception team.
The Public Health National General Practice Profile shows that around 92% of patients are of a white/british origin; with a further 4.2% of Asian orgin. The level of deprivation within the practice population is rated as six, on a scale of one to ten. Level one represents the highest level of deprivation; and level ten the lowest. The practice has a higher than average number of patients aged over 65 years. The age/sex profile shows a comparable average number of females aged between five and 14 years registered at the practice. The average life expectancy for patients at the practice is 80 years for men and 84 years for women, compared to the national average of 79 years and 83 years respectively.
Updated
21 March 2019
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Phillip, Harding and Eggitt, also known as the Oakwood Surgery on 29 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
-
what we found when we inspected
-
information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
-
information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.
We have rated this practice as good overall.
We found that:
-
The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
-
Staff were consistent in supporting patients to live healthier lives, including identifying those who needed extra support, through a targeted and proactive approach to health promotion and prevention of ill-health, and they used every contact with people to do so.
-
Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
-
The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
-
The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:
-
Innovation was encouraged to achieve sustained improvements in safety and continual reductions in harm. The practice had invited all practices in Doncaster, the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), community public health nurse and the local children's safeguarding board to their multidisciplinary education sessions.The topics of the sessions were determined by the participants but included examples and cases for calibration and trouble shooting.All staff were encouraged to attend, so shared learning could be, for example, from the receptionist or a GP.
-
One of the GPs worked closely with Doncaster Children’s Trust to safeguard children and had received an award for partner of the year due to their extensive safeguarding work.
-
Staff were consistent in supporting patients to live healthier lives, including identifying those who needed extra support, through a targeted and proactive approach to health promotion and prevention of ill-health, and they used every contact with people to do so. For example the practice had developed nine patient education videos based on patient’s needs which were available on social media and on their practice website. These videos were informative for both patients and the wider population. 662 people had signed up to the social media page and there were high numbers of people viewing the videos. For example a video demonstrating how to use a steroid cream had been viewed 10,928 times. practice had developed their own health videos which were displayed on the television in the waiting are
he practice had undertaken two education sessions for patients with Diabetes. These sessions had a positive impact on the patients that had taken part. For example, the practice have seen patients take more responsibility for their overall health and patients have reported weight loss.
-
The practice were trialling peer to peer support sessions with a couple of patients experiencing poor mental health led by one of the GP partners. The practice had seen a reduction in discharge letters from the out of hour’s service.
Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:
Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice
Working age people (including those recently retired and students)
Updated
21 March 2019
People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)
Updated
21 March 2019
People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable
Updated
21 March 2019