• Doctor
  • GP practice

St Luke's Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Pantile Avenue, Southend on Sea, Essex, SS2 4BD

Provided and run by:
HCRG Care Services Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 18 September 2018

This service is provided by Virgin Care Services Limited. It is based at St Luke’s Health Centre in Pantile Avenue, Southend. They provide general practice services via an Alternative Medical Services Provider contract (APMS).

The practice list size is approximately 6377. The practice age profile is higher than CCG and national averages for under 18-year olds and lower for those aged 65 plus. There is a higher percentage of patients on the list with a long-term condition. There are higher than average levels of deprivation affecting children and older people.

The out of hours service is provided by IC24.

The practice has five doctors, one male and four female. There is a female practice nurse and a female health care assistant. Clinical staff are supported by a variety of administrative and clerical staff, as well as a service manager and deputy service manager. Managers from the wider Virgin Care organisation also provide support.

The practice provides the regulated activities of: Diagnostic and screening procedures; Treatment of disease, disorder or injury; Family planning; Maternity and midwifery services.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 18 September 2018

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced inspection at St Luke's Health Centre on 12 July 2018, as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them. However, recommendations from reviews of incidents were not always actioned in a timely manner.
  • Staff had been appropriately trained in safeguarding which kept patients protected from the risk of abuse.
  • There were some systems in place to manage the safe recruitment of staff. The immunisation status of some non-clinical staff for expected vaccinations had not been sought at recruitment, however following our inspection, processes were put in place to ensure this was done.
  • The practice managed medicines effectively, including the review of prescriptions and patients taking high-risk medicines. However, some staff members were not aware of the procedure to follow in relation to uncollected prescriptions.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • The overall performance of the practice in the Quality and Outcomes Framework was in line with local and national averages.
  • Patient referrals were made in line with guidance but the content could have benefited from more detail.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • The practice was responsive to the needs of patients and tailored their services accordingly.
  • Views on the accessibility of the appointments system were mixed across the sources of patient feedback sought. The practice had responded to recent comments relating to the appointments system and changed it to accommodate these views.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Take action to monitor and improve the quality and content of referrals.
  • Take action to review staff awareness of the protocol for dealing with uncollected prescriptions.
  • Improve the system to action recommendations for significant events.
  • Take action to improve patient uptake with national screening and immunisation programmes.
  • Review the processes for checking staff immunity status.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.