Archived: VH Doctors Ltd - Purfleet Care Centre

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating July 2017 – Requires improvement)

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Requires improvement

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive at VH Doctors Ltd on 30 July 2018 as part of our inspection programme to follow up concerns previously highlighted in the July 2017 inspection.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• The practice had clear governance arrangements and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
• National data showed that the practice was performing in line with national averages for most indicators. Where the practice had performed below national average they had acknowledged it and worked on improving the outcomes.
• The systems for managing and storing medicines, medical gases, emergency medicines and equipment, minimised risks. The system for storing vaccinations was ineffective. We found staff had not regularly documented checks on the fridge where vaccinations were stored. The practice had assessed the process of recording fridge temperatures and put in place a staff rota. We found there had been an improvement.
• Safety risk assessments had been completed however in some cases the actions highlighted in the assessments had not been completed.
• There was an effective system for receiving and actioning patient safety and medicine alerts.
• The practice had identified 0.3% of its practice list as carers by highlighting them during registration and clinical consultations.
• The practice had considered the type of equipment for use in the treatment of patients during a medical emergency. For example, the practice was equipped to deal with sepsis.
• Data from the national GP patient survey published in July 2018 showed there had been an increase in patient’s satisfaction with regards to the care they had received. Yet patients were still dissatisfied with the access to the service.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The uptake for childhood immunisations was below the local and national average.
• The practice had an active patient participation group who were positive about the support and improvements the service had made.
• The practice had received 16 CQC comment cards, 12 were positive about the care and treatment patients had received and four had mixed reviews in relation to their ability to make contact with the practice by phone.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Establish effective systems to complete action plans as a result of risk assessments.
• Strengthen systems for monitoring medicines and vaccines that require stroing in a fridge.
• Improve childhood immunisation uptake.
• Improve patient satisfaction in relation to appointments and contacting the surgery by telephone.
• Improve the process for the identification of carers.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.