Blyth's Meadow Surgery

Updated 10 March 2016

Blyth's Meadow Surgery is located at Trinovantian Way, Braintree, Essex. The practice provides primary medical care to approximately 10300 patients living in the Braintree local area and holds a General Medical Services (GMS) contract.

There are four GP partners at the practice, three of which are male and one female. The GPs are supported by two practice nurses, a health care assistant, a practice manager, secretaries, administrative, and reception staff.

The practice is open Monday to Friday, from 8.30am until 6.30pm. Consultation appointments are available starting at 8.30am until 11.20am and 4pm until 6pm Monday to Friday. Home visits are available as required based upon need.

The practice has opted out of providing GP services to patients outside of normal working hours such as evenings and weekends. Outside of surgery hour’s services are provided by ‘111’ and ‘Primecare’ out-of-hours emergency and non-emergency treatment services. Details of how to access this out of hour’s service is available within the practice on the practice website and in the practice leaflet.

Updated 10 March 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection at Blyth’s Meadow Surgery on 13 February 2015. The practice was rated as good overall and in particular rated as good for effective, caring, responsive, well-led services and requires improvement for safe service.

During the inspection on 13 February 2015 we found that;

• The practice did not have safe medicine management procedures.

• They did not have robust controlled drugs stock control.

• No controlled drugs disposal arrangements.

• They did not follow the practice policy for the safe disposal of medication.

The practice were issued with a requirement notice for improvement.

There were also areas we told the practice they should address to improve safety.

We found:

• Risks to patients were not assessed appropriately or recorded.

• Complaints were not being reviewed to detect recurrent themes or trends.

• Meeting minutes were not recorded or made available to staff members.

Following the previous inspection the practice sent us information about the actions they would take and when they would be implemented.

We then carried out a focused inspection at Blyth’s Meadow Surgery 08 December 2015 to follow-up on our previous inspection and to ensure that the practice had made the required improvements.

Our key findings during this focused follow-up inspection were as follows:

• The practice had reviewed medicine management procedures and implemented changes that were effective.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Complaints were reviewed to detect themes and trends.
• Minutes of meetings were recorded and made available to staff.

We were therefore satisfied that the provider had made all of the improvements identified as a result of the inspection on 13 February 2015.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 4 June 2015

The provider was rated as good for effective, responsive, caring, and well-led, services and this included people with long-term conditions. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safety. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including people with long-term conditions

Nursing staff ran chronic disease management clinics for patients with long term conditions. Recent changes to the process to invite patients to clinics had been improved to promote attendance. However nationally reported data showed the practice chronic disease management was lower than other practices in the local CCG area and nationally.

Updated 4 June 2015

The provider was rated as good for effective, responsive caring, and well-led, services and this included families, children and young people. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safety. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including people with 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 for the standard childhood immunisations were mixed. For example flu immunisations and chronic disease management was low for all populations groups. Appointments were available outside of school hours.

Updated 4 June 2015

The provider was rated as good for effective, responsive, caring, and well-led, services and this included older people. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safety. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including older people.

Nationally reported data showed that the satisfaction of patients were lower than other practices in the local CCG area. Practice leaflets and the website gave patients information regarding home visits and requesting longer appointments when needed, although patients we spoke with on the day had not used this service. The leadership of the practice had started to engage with this patient group and were looking at options to improve services for them.

Updated 4 June 2015

The provider was rated as good for effective, responsive, caring, and well-led, services and this included working age people (including those recently retired and students). The provider was rated as requires improvement for safety. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including working age people (including those recently retired and students).

This age profile of patients at the practice is higher than average for working age, students and the recently retired but the services available did not fully reflect the needs of this group. The practice did not offer extended opening hours for appointments. The practice was currently promoting NHS health checks for this population group and sending out information to patients to encourage them to attend.

Updated 4 June 2015

The provider was rated as good for effective, responsive, caring, and well-led, services and this included people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The provider was rated as requires improvement for safety. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

From comparative data we reviewed health management of people experiencing poor mental health was lower than other practices in the local CCG area and nationally. The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations including MIND. Most clinical staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs.

Updated 4 June 2015

The provider was rated as good for effective, responsive, caring, and well-led, services and this included people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The provider was rated as requires improvement for safety. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. However nationally reported data showed the practice did not have registers to identify people whose circumstances make them vulnerable. Though we did find improvements with the registers at the time of our inspection. The practice told us they held multi-disciplinary team meetings but could not find the notes taken at these meetings to evidence their involvement. It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Most staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Most 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.