Hailey View Surgery

Updated 18 February 2016

Hailey View Surgery provides a range of primary medical services to the residents of Hoddesdon and the neighbouring village of Royden. For the past 10 years the practice has been at the current purpose built location, 39 Christian Close, Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, EN11 9FF.

The practice population is pre-dominantly White British with a higher than average 40 to 75 year age range and lower than average 20 to 29 years. National data indicates the area is one of low deprivation. The practice has approximately 8700 patients and services are provided under a general medical services (GMS) contract.

The practice is led by three GP partners, two female and one male and they employ two salaried GPs, one female and one male. The nursing team consists of one nurse practitioner, one nurse prescriber, two practice nurses and one health care assistant, all female. There is a practice manager and a reception manager who lead a team of reception and administrative staff. The practice also uses the services of a business consultant.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Appointments are available from 8.30am to 12pm and 2.30pm to 6.30pm daily. They offer extended opening hours from 7.30am to 8am and 6.30pm to 7pm on most days.

When the practice is closed out-of-hours services are provided by Herts Urgent Care and can be accessed via the NHS 111 service.

Updated 18 February 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Hailey View Surgery on 5 January 2016. 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.
• The practice had developed its own treatment templates to ensure 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.
• The practice had adopted a system of all patients having a usual GP. This provided continuity of care and the GP took responsibility for all correspondence for these patients.
• Urgent same day appointments were available in addition to telephone consultations and routine appointments which could be booked up to four weeks in advance.
• 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.
• the provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Ensure staff receive training in infection control at a level that is appropriate to their role.

• Review the chaperone policy to include the outcome of the risk assessment regarding non-clinical members of staff performing chaperone duties.

• Update the health and safety poster with details of the identified health and safety lead so staff know who to refer to.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 18 February 2016

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.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was better than the CCG and national average. The practice achieved 94% of available points compared to the CCG average of 89% and the national average of 89%.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

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

Updated 18 February 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.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 88%, which was better than the CCG average of 83% and the national average of 82%.

• Urgent same day appointments were available for pregnant women and children.

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

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Updated 18 February 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.

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

• The practice carried out weekly visits to a local care home.

• Annual health checks were available for patients over the age of 75 years.

Updated 18 February 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.

• Extended hours appointments were available outside of normal work hours.

• Telephone consultations were available.

• 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 18 February 2016

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

• 91% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was above the national average.

• Performance for mental health related indicators was better than the CCG and national average. The practice achieved 100% of available points compared to the CCG average of 96% and the national average of 93%.

• 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 advance 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.

• The practice had access to an onsite counsellor and psychotherapist. Discretionary funding was provided for patient in financial need to enable them to attend appointments with the psychotherapist.

• The practice 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 patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 18 February 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 patients with a learning disability.

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

• The practice informed 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.

• There was a lead GP for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.