Queens Park Medical Centre

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Queens Park Surgery on 16 December 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good. Specifically, we found the practice to be outstanding for providing caring services. We found the practice to be good for offering safe, effective, and responsive and well led services.

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 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.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour. This means providers must be open and transparent with service users about their care and treatment, including when it goes wrong.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

• The practice offered a clinic for complex leg ulcers which was delivered by nurses who had undertaken further training to deliver this service. The practice had also adapted a treatment room to meet the needs of this patient group. The scheme was started in the practice for a range of reasons. There was a lack of a local accessible service in the community and patients were required to travel to the local acute hospital. The service provided care closer to home and meant patients had a reduced traveling time. In a six month period the average number of patients using the service was 174.

• The GP partners held a personal patient list, which meant the GPs always saw their own patients. The exception would be such things as when a GP was on annual leave. When the GP was not available another GP provided buddy cover. These meant patients were seen by their named GPs or the buddy even when requesting an emergency appointment. In addition there were direct phone lines which were always manned by the receptionists attached to the particular GP. This enabled good relationships to be built between the patient, the GP and the receptionists. The staff were also able to build up a good knowledge of their patients and their families. The system meant patients although part of large practice were familiar with their named clinicians. The practice had a reduced rate of patients using Accident and Emergency or requiring home visits. Patients were positive about this system and were complementary about the named receptionist.

• The practice gathered feedback from all staff on a monthly basis which they used to improve services in the practice. The staff feedback forms were attached to the staffs pay slip. The staff completed the forms and returned them to the manager. The feedback has led to minor improvements such as extra toasters for the staff to the appointment of additional staff and providing support services for staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice