Riverside Surgery

Updated 10 March 2016

Dr Burscough & Partners occupy purpose built GP premises in Brigg, North Lincolnshire. They have a General Medical Services (GMS) contract and also offer enhanced services, for example; extended hours, childhood vaccination and immunisation scheme, influenza and pneumococcal immunisations, facilitating timely diagnosis and support for people with dementia, learning disabilities, minor surgery, remote care monitoring and patient participation. They are a dispensing practice and the practice has a branch surgery at Broughton. The branch surgery was not visited during the inspection.

There are 12210 patients on the practice list and the majority of patients are of white british background. The proportion of the practice population in the 65 years and over age group is higher than the England average. The practice population in the under 18 age group is similar to the England average. The practice scored eight on the deprivation measurement scale, which is the third lowest decile. People living in more deprived areas tend to have greater need for health services. The overall practice deprivation score is similar to the England average (the practice is 15.1 and the England average is 23.6).

The practice has two female and four male doctors and is a partnership with four partners. There are two salaried GPs and two registrars. There are two nurse practitioners, seven practice nurses, two health care assistants and one phlebotomist. There is a business manager, thirteen receptionists and seven administration staff.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays and has extended hours from 6.30pm to 8pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Patients requiring a GP outside of normal working hours are advised to contact NHS 111.

Updated 10 March 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Burscough & Partners on 12 November 2015. 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 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.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment although not always with their choice of GP. There were 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, which it acted on.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
• The practice had proactively sought feedback from patients and had an active patient participation group.

• Patients’ confidentiality was respected however conversations at the reception desk could be overheard.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 10 March 2016

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

• All patients with complex needs had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medicines needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

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

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• The practice maintained a register of all patients aged 17 or over with diabetes mellitus, which specified the type of diabetes where a diagnosis had been confirmed. The practice also used the information they collected for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and their performance against national screening programmes to monitor outcomes for patients.

Updated 10 March 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 A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

• 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.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses

Updated 10 March 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.

• It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• Longer appointments were available for older people when needed, and this was acknowledged positively in feedback from patients.

Updated 10 March 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 reflected the needs for this age group.

Updated 10 March 2016

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

• 71.4% of people diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months compared to the CCG average 74.5%, national average 77.0%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

• The practice carried out advanced 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.

• It 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 people with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 10 March 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 those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.

• The practice had told 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.