Archived: Dr IJ Mantella & Partners Also known as Sutton Park Surgery

Updated 28 April 2017

The practice is located in Sutton Coldfield. Ample parking is available on-site. The surgery occupies a two-storey building and is suitable for disabled patients. There are five GPs, four of whom are partners and a salaried GP, each working between four and eight sessions. Two of the GPs are female and three are male. There are four part-time practice nurses, three of whom are working on a locum basis and a part-time health care assistant. There is a full-time practice manager, supported by a team of part-time administrators, receptionists and a medical secretary.

The practice is a teaching practice for GPs in training.

The practice is open between 8am and 8pm on Mondays and between 8am and 6.30pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. Appointments are from 8.30am to 11.30am for routine and urgent appointments, and an urgent overflow surgery is available between 11.30am and 1pm Mondays to Fridays. On Monday afternoons appointments are available between 3.20pm and 6pm for routine and urgent appointments and on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday afternoons, between 2.50pm and 6pm. The practice offers an extended hours surgery on Monday evenings between 6.30pm and 8pm. When the practice is closed, patients are directed to the Badger out of hours service.

In addition to pre-bookable appointments that can be booked up to four weeks in advance, urgent appointments were also available for people who need them.

There are 7,606 registered patients on the practice list.

The practice is part of a group of five local practices, known as the ‘Sutton 5’, who have worked collaboratively over the past two years and are planning to formalise this arrangement with a merger of the practices during 2017.

Updated 28 April 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr.I.J. Mantella & Partners on 17 January 2017. 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.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• The provider should explore how they could further improve how complaints received from service users are processed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 28 April 2017

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 CCG/national averages. For example, 84% of patients in whom the last BP reading in the last months was 140/80mHg or less, compared to a CCG average of 75% and a national average of 78%.
• 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. Annual reviews were allocated a forty minute appointment. 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 28 April 2017

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. For example, dedicated nurse led health checks were offered to 16-year old’s, focussing on healthy lifestyle and contraception. This system was also used to identify young carers.
• 85% of women aged 25-64 were recorded as having a cervical screening test in the preceding five years. This compared to a CCG average of 79% and a national average of 81%.
• 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, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 28 April 2017

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 was part of a group committed to delivering the Clinical Commissioning Group’s (CCG) Achieving Clinical Excellence programme. This included a project aiming to reduce unplanned admissions in the frail elderly. Lead GPs from each practice were meeting each week to examine admissions data and were supported by a group of community matrons employed as care co-ordinators, to ensure local services were fully utilised and to organise safe and early discharge of those admitted and after their discharge.
• In conjunction with two local practices, the practice had committed to an ACE Plus project, designed to identify unmet health and social care needs in the frail elderly. A key element of this process had seen the introduction of a community nurse to support those patients who were not easily identified through pre-existing disease groups and who were not already in the system. The key aims were to identify unmet health and social care needs, to carry out falls assessments and dementia screening, which included carer support.
• The practice was a pilot site for an Age Concern wellbeing co-ordinator project, offering weekly drop-in sessions at the practice.

Updated 28 April 2017

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.
• Practice nurse and health care assistant appointments were available from 8.30am and worker’s appointments were available up until 5.50pm.
• Routine GP appointments were available to pre-book from 8.30am.
• NHS health checks were routinely encouraged.

Updated 28 April 2017

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

• 77% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was comparable to the CCG average of 85% and the national average of 84%.
• 100% of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses had had a comprehensive agreed care plan documented in their record in the last 12 months. This compared to a CCG average of 88% and a national average of 89%. However, the overall exception rate was higher than expected at 44% and the GPs shared with us their plan for improvement, which had already begun to produce positive results.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.
• A dedicated dementia support directory had been developed, which included all local third sector and charitable support available.
• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.
• The practice had 32 patients on its mental health register, 16 of whom had received an annual review in the last 12 months.
• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• 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 28 April 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability. The practice had 13 patients with a learning disability on their register, 10 of whom had received a health check in the last year. The remaining patients were being encouraged to attend.
• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.
• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• For those patients with severe visual or hearing impairment, their notes were annotated to enable all staff to be aware of their individual needs.
• 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.