Archived: Victoria Medical Centre

Updated 17 June 2016

Green Street Clinic is situated at 118 – 122 Green Street, Eastbourne, BN21 1RT, within a residential area.

On street parking is available close to the practice. There are six GP partners. Three are male and three are female.

There are three practice nurses and four healthcare assistants.

• The practice is open from 8.30 am to 12.30 pm and 1pm to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday.

• Telephone access to the reception team is available from 8.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday.

• Any patient attending the surgery between 12.30pm and 1pm can access the practice by ringing the doorbell.

• Appointments are from 8.30am to 11.30am and either 2.30pm to 4.30pm or 3.30pm to 5.30pm, (depending on the GPs personal schedule) Monday to Friday. Additional appointments are given to patients requiring urgent medical assessment. These additional appointments follow the usual clinic.

• Extended hours appointments are offered on Wednesday from 7.30am to 8.30am and also either Tuesdays or Wednesday evenings on rotation until 7.40pm.

• The practice offers a duty doctor system during each day. The duty doctor is responsible for managing all urgent healthcare from 8am through to 6.30pm.

• Patients requiring urgent advice between 8am and 8.30am will be directed to call IC24 and will then be referred to the practice duty doctor.

Patients requiring a GP outside of normal working hours are advised to contact the NHS GP out of hour’s service on telephone number 111.

The practice operates under a General Medical Services contract and has 10,294 patients registered.

40% of the practice population are over the age of 65 years, 61% of the practice population are either in work or full-time education and 61% of the practice population have a long-standing health condition.

Updated 17 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Green Street Clinic on 1 March 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.
• 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 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:-

• Ensure that the practice continues to progress and embed a robust audit trail to record and monitor decisions, rationale, action taken and outcomes in relation to significant events and complaints.

• Ensure that the practices reviews the accessibilty to clinical room panic buttons and appropriate adjustments made.Ensure that the cleaning of desk top equipment is recorded and auditable.

• Ensure that a system to manage the regular review/update of the practices policies is implemented.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 17 June 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.

• The percentage of patients on the diabetes register, with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) was 96% compared to the national average of 88%.

• The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, who had had influenza immunisation in the preceding 1 April to 31March (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) was 98% compared to the national average of 94%.

• 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.

• One GP had a special interest in spinal injury and neurodisability and provided care on a voluntary basis to patients at a local specialist unit. This included patients with total nursing care requirements and conditions such as Motor Neurone Disease.

Updated 17 June 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 had proactively searched for all patients between the ages of 16 to 18 years and invited them to receive the Meningitis ACWY vaccine as they were not included in the original target group, but deemed to be at risk.

• 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 percentage of women aged 25-64 whose notes recorded that a cervical screening test had been performed in the preceding 5 years was 83% compared to the national average of 82%.

• 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.

• The practice offered a full family planning/contraceptive service.

Updated 17 June 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 proactively offered over 75 reviews which included a medicines review and advanced care planning where appropriate.

Updated 17 June 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.

• 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, including age 40 to 75 health checks.

• The practice offered extended hours for those patients who were unable to attend during the working day. Appointments were available from 7.30am to 8.30am on Wednesdays and 6.30pm to 7.40pm on either Tuesdays or Wednesdays on rotation.

Updated 17 June 2016

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

• The percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in the preceding 12 months (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015) was 100% compared to the national average of 88%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those 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 17 June 2016

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 offered a personalised and holistic approach to care. It was recognised that emotional well-being was as important as physical. One example of this was the mentoring of patients to become volunteers thereby helping them to develop coping strategies and social skills improving quality of life.

• 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.