Archived: Simpson Medical Practice

Updated 23 July 2015

Simpson Medical Practice is a GP surgery provided by GTD Primary Care Limited, a not for profit private organisation, which serves a residential area located in North East Manchester. At the time of this inspection we were informed 5,117 patients were registered with the practice.

The practice population experiences higher levels of income deprivation than the practice average across England. There is a lower proportion of patients above 65 years of age (6.2%) than the practice average across England (17%). The practice has a higher proportion of patients under 18 years of age (19.5%) than the practice average across England (14.7%). 42.3 per cent of the practice’s patients have a longstanding medical condition compared to the practice average across England of 54%.

At the time of our inspection four salaried GPs were providing primary medical services to patients registered at the practice. The GPs are supported in providing clinical services by an advanced nurse practitioner, a practice nurse and a health care assistant Clinical staff are supported by the practice manager and the other members of the practice team.

The opening times of the practice are:

08.30 – 20.00 Monday and Thursday.

08.00 – 18.30 Tuesday.

08.30 – 18.30 Wednesday and Friday.

09.00 – 13.00 Saturday.

The practice contracts with NHS England to provide Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) to the patients registered with the practice.

The practice has opted out of providing out-of-hours services to their patients. This service is provided by the registered provider through their out of hours service (Go To Doc). The practice website provides patients with details of how to access medical advice when the practice is closed. Patients are also provided with these details via a recorded message when they telephone the practice outside the usual opening times.

Updated 23 July 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Simpson Medical Practice was inspected on 11 June 2015. This was a comprehensive inspection. This means we reviewed the provider in relation to the five key questions leading to a rating on each on a four point rating scale. Overall we rated the practice as good and specifically in respect of being safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, including those relating to recruitment checks.

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.

• 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 with a named GP and that 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

• The clinical audits seen dated from 2011 to 2015. Some of the documentation relating to clinical audits was sparse. The provider acknowledged in their own quality assurance processes that improvements were needed to the clinical audit processes at the practice. The provider should ensure the actions taken to improve clinical audit processes are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement in this area is sustained.

• In line with good practice all formal complaints or concerns were recorded and investigated. The complaints record detailed the nature of the complaint, the outcome of the investigation and how this was communicated to the person making the complaint. However we were informed that some verbal complaints were not always recorded (where they were deemed to be of a ‘minor’ nature and had been quickly resolved). The provider should ensure that verbal complaints are recorded to determine if patterns of concerns are emerging in the complaints being raised.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 23 July 2015

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. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medication 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.

Updated 23 July 2015

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 23 July 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 23 July 2015

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 23 July 2015

The practice had carried out annual health checks for people experiencing poor mental health. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health including those with dementia. The practice had sign-posted patients experiencing poor mental health to various support groups and third sector organisations such as MIND. There was a system in place to follow up on patients who did not attend practice appointments or had attended accident and emergency where there may have been mental health needs. The practice was providing primary health care services to a local residential service for adults with complex mental health needs.

Updated 23 July 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It 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.