Conran Medical Centre

Updated 6 April 2018

Conran Medical Centre is the registered provider and provides primary care services to its registered list of 6360 patients. The practice delivers commissioned services under the General Medical Services (GMS) contract and is a member of Manchester Health and Care Commissioning (CCG).

The GMS contract is the contract between general practices and NHS England for delivering primary care services to local communities. The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures; maternity and midwifery services and treatment of disease, disorder and injury.

Regulated activities are delivered to the patient population from the following address:

77 Church Lane

Harpurhey

Manchester

Greater Manchester

M9 5BH

The practice is a teaching practice which takes students from the medical school of Manchester University.

The practice has just undertaken a full refurbishment of their premises, doubling the capacity of clinical rooms available.

The practice has a website that contains comprehensive information about what they do to support their patient population and the in house and online services offered:

www.conranmedicalcentre.nhs.uk

The practice is situated in an area at number one on the deprivation scale (the lower the number, the higher the deprivation). People living in more deprived areas tend to have greater need for health services.

The male life expectancy for the area is 79 years compared with the national average of 79 years. The female life expectancy for the area is 83 years compared with the national average of 83 years.

Updated 6 April 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 22/06/2015 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students) – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Conran Medical Centre on 27 February 2018.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• 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 practice had an effective programme of continuous clinical and internal audits. The audits demonstrated quality improvements and staff were actively engaged in monitoring and improving patient outcomes as a result.
• The partners encouraged a culture of openness and honesty. The practice had systems for being aware of notifiable safety incidents and sharing the information with staff and ensuring appropriate action was taken.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• The practice had an established, proactive patient participation group.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice was –first in the UK to pilot the Lung Health Check (LHC) with The Macmillan Cancer Improvement Partnership. The aim of the pilot was to identify and diagnose lung disease earlier in smokers and former smokers. The one-stop-shop Lung Health check included a CT scan which took place within the mobile clinic. This resulted in one patient being identified and treated within the practice. Due to the success of the pilot this was being rolled out city wide.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 10 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. Clinical 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. Self-empowerment was promoted so that patients could be more involved in their own health management and improvement.

Updated 10 September 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. Immunisation rates were 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. Baby immunisation and children’s clinics were held on a weekly basis.

Updated 10 September 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 10 September 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 10 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia and GP demonstrated sound knowledge around patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions, although this could have been better documented.

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 (A&E) where they may have been experiencing poor mental health. Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs and dementia and patients were referred to a memory assessment clinic when appropriate.

Updated 10 September 2015

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 homeless people, asylum seekers and those with a learning disability. 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.