Archived: Canterbury Health Centre

Updated 19 January 2017

The Canterbury Health Centre is a GP practice located in the City of Canterbury, Kent. It provides care for approximately 5250 patients. It is located within the city boundary and has a mainly urban patient population.

There are two male GP partners. There is one salaried female GP. There are two nurses and two healthcare assistant all female. There is a practice manager and administrative and reception staff.

The demographics of the population the practice serves is different to the national averages in that it is much younger. The number of patients between 15 and 24 years of age is approximately twice the national average and there are more patients between the ages of 25 and 30 that the national average. The number of patients in age ranges from 40 to 79 is less that that nationally sometimes markedly so. The number of patients aged 80 years and over is similar to the national average.

The majority of the patients describe themselves as white British. Income deprivation and unemployment are in line with national averages. Although the practice as a whole is not in an area of deprivation there are pockets of urban 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 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. There are evening surgeries on Mondays and Wednesdays until 7.45pm and 7.30pm respectively. Appointments were determined by individual GPs and patients might be seen at any time that the practice was open.

The surgery is purpose built with consulting, treatment rooms and administration rooms on the ground floor. There is access for disabled patients as well as mothers and babies.

Services are provided from

Canterbury Health Centre

26 Old Dover Road

Canterbury

CT1 3JH

The practice has opted out of providing out-of-hours services to their own patients. This is provided by Integrated Care 24. 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 19 January 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Canterbury Health Centre on 20 October 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
• 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 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.
• The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.
• 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.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

• There was an exemplary approach to reporting and learning from significant events and the volume of reported events was very high. Learning from the practice was discussed amongst local GPs during training events.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 19 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 was better than the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and/ national average. For example the percentage of patients on the diabetes register, with a record of a foot examination and a risk classification within the proceeding twelve months had been consistently higher than local and national averages since 2005 and currently was 92% compared to a national average of 89%. The practice had outperformed the national average by between 1% and 11% every year over the last ten years
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. This included, learning disability, mental health and patients with dementia as well as those who needed translation services or homeless patients.
• 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 19 January 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• There were systems 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 and emergency (A&E) attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.
• We saw that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 81%, which was comparable to the CCG and national average of 83%.
• The practice offers a full contraceptive service including long-acting reversible contraceptives such as the fitting of an intrauterine device. (A device inserted into the womb to prevent pregnancy). This service was offered to their own and other practices’ patients.
• 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 19 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.
• There was an anti coagulation service (anti coagulation is the use of thinning agents/medicines to prevent blot clots, which requires regular monitoring through blood tests) that visited patients in their own homes if needed.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 19 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.

Updated 19 January 2017

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

• Eighty two per cent of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months for which figures were available (to March 2015), which is comparable to the national average.

• Ninety per cent of patients diagnosed with a mental health disease had a care plan during the last 12 months. This was better than the CCG at 83% and the national average at 88%. The practice had outperformed the national average and local average every year for the last four years.

• 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 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 19 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 those with a learning disability. Homeless patients were able to register with the practice using the practice’s address or the address of a local homelessness support organisation.
• 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.
• When dealing with safeguarding incidents the practice routinely gave specific attention to the impact the issues might have had on any carers involved.