Sturry Surgery

Updated 16 January 2017

The Sturry Surgery is a GP practice located in Sturry village Kent. The village is about a mile out of Canterbury. It is the main part of a larger practice, with a second location in the city of Canterbury. There are about 17,000 patients who are cared from both practice locations.

There are 13 GPs, eight female and five male. There are three GP partners. There are five nurses and two healthcare assistants all female. There is a practice manager and administrative and reception staff.

Canterbury is a university town and the village of Sturry has seen an expansion with more family homes built. The demographic of the practice population is different to the national averages. There are markedly younger patients, between the ages of 15 and 29. In all the other age groups the practice has less than the national average

The majority of the patients describe themselves as white British. Income deprivation and unemployment are marginally below the national averages. Although the practice as a whole is not in an area of deprivation there are pockets of deprivation within it.

The practice has a general medical services contract with NHS England for delivering primary care services to local communities. The practice offers a full range of primary medical services. The practice is a training practice.

The practice is open between 8.30am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday, though the telephones are staffed from 8am. There are various morning and evening surgeries across the two practice locations during the week. The practice is closed at the weekends.

The surgery building a purpose built healthcare facility with consulting and treatment rooms on the ground floor and administration rooms above.

Services are provided from

53 Island Road

Sturry

Canterbury

Kent

CT2 0EF

The practice has opted out of providing out-of-hours services to their own patients. This is provided by Primecare, though the NHS 111 system. There is information, on the practice building and website, for patients on how to access the out of hours service when the practice is closed.

Updated 16 January 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sturry Surgery on 8 November. 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 for reporting and recording significant events. Though some events had not been formally reported.
• 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 experience and had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge 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 improvement are:

• The practice should formally record near misses (dispensing errors that do not reach a patient) as reviewing these assists in reducing the risk of errors in the future.
• The practice should review the reporting of significant events to try and ensure that a greater number of the significant events are formally reported.
• The practice should review the systems used to identify patients who are caring for others so as to develop a carers’ register which is more reflective of the patient population.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 16 January 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 were above both the local and national averages. For example the percentage of patients with diabetes who had a foot examination and risk classification (in the last 12 months 2014/15) was 86% which was above both the CCG average of 79% and the national average of 81%. The practice results had been consistently higher than local and national results over the last ten years.
• 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.
• The practice provided consultant-led out-patient clinics for certain specialities such as general surgery, general medicine, and dermatology. Many of the patients who used these services had long term conditions. This service allowed the patients to access out-patient services closer to home and prevented the need to travel to local district hospitals and those further away.

Updated 16 January 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 Accident & Emergency 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.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 80%, which was comparable to both the CCG average of 82% and the national average of 81%. The practice telephoned patients who did not attend for their cervical screening test to remind them of its importance.
• 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.
• The practice provided consultant-led out-patient clinics for certain specialities such as gynaecology and ear nose and throat conditions. Many of the patients who used these services were women and children. This service allowed the patients to access out-patient services closer to home and prevented the need to travel to local district hospitals and those further away

Updated 16 January 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.

Updated 16 January 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.
• The practice offered an extended hours service, for patients who found it difficult to attend during working hours, either in the mornings or evenings on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday alternating between the two sites.

Updated 16 January 2017

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

• The percentage of patients with dementia whose care plan has been reviewed in the last 12mths was 82% which was above both the CCG average of 77% and the national average of 78%.
• Performance for mental health related indicators were higher than both the local and national averages. For example 85% of relevant patients had a care plan, on which they and their carers had been consulted. This was higher than the local and national average of 77%.
• A senior partner, with specialist mental health qualifications, was regularly involved in Mental Capacity Act assessments and provided training, mentorship and oversight for other practice staff.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients 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 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 16 January 2017

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 and those with a learning disability.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
• 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.
• 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.