Bute House Medical Centre

Updated 21 December 2016

Bute House Medical Centre provides a range of primary medical services to the residents of Luton. The practice has been at its current location of Grove Road, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU1 1RW since 1997.

The practice population is ethnically diverse with a higher than average number of patients aged 20-34 years. National data indicates the area is one of higher deprivation. The practice has approximately 8,460 patients with services provided under a general medical services (GMS) contract, a nationally agreed contract with NHS England.

The practice is led by five GP partners, three female and two male. The nursing team consists of two practice nurses and one health care assistant, all female. There are a number of reception and administrative staff and a housekeeper all led by a practice manager and an office manager. Bute House Medical Centre is a training practice and they currently have two GP trainees.

The practice is open from 8.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday, with access via the telephone from 8am daily. They offer extended opening hours from 6.30pm to 8pm one day a week on either a Monday or Wednesday.

When the practice is closed, out-of-hours services are provided by Care UK and can be accessed via the NHS 111 service.

Updated 21 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bute House Medical Centre on 23 June 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.
• The GPs in the practice had specialist interests and training.
• The practice was an accredited research and training practice.
• Patients said they were happy with the care they received and thought staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect
• 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:

• Continue to identify and support patients who are carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 21 December 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.

• A specialist respiratory nurse had been recruited to attend the practice weekly.

• 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.

Updated 21 December 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.

• 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 72%, which was lower than the CCG average of 80% and the national average of 82%. The practice had taken steps to improve the uptake of cervical screening.

• 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.

• Opportunistic chlamydia screening was offered to patients aged 16 to 24 years of age.

Updated 21 December 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.

• All of these patients had a named GP.

• One of the GPs had a diploma in Geriatric Medicine, this enabled a lead clinician for this group of patients.

Updated 21 December 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.

• Extended opening hours were available one evening a week.

• The practice encouraged its patients to attend national screening programmes for bowel and breast cancer screening. For example,

  • 72% of females, aged 50-70 years, were screened for breast cancer in last 36 months compared to the CCG average of 71% and the national average of 72%.

  • 45% of patients, aged 60-69 years, were screened for bowel cancer in last 30 months compared to the CCG average of 51% and the national average of 58%.

Updated 21 December 2016

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

• 87% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face-to-face meeting in the last 12 months, which is comparable to the local and national averages.
• Performance for mental health related indicators was comparable to the CCG and national average. The practice achieved 92% of available points compared to the CCG average of 90% and the national average of 93%.

• 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 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 21 December 2016

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.

• 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 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.

• The practice identified patients that were also a carer and placed an alert on their computer record to inform practice staff. They had 42 identified carers which was approximately 0.5% of the practice list.