Archived: Fieldhead Surgery Also known as Dr Jalil Ahmed

Updated 6 January 2017

Fieldhead Surgery, Leymoor Road, Golcar, Huddersfield, HD7 4QQ, provides services for 8,000 patients. The provider is situated within the Greater Huddersfield Clinical Commissioning Group and delivers primary medical services under the terms of a personal medical services (PMS) contract.

Services are provided within a purpose built and accessible building which is owned and maintained by the partners.

The population experiences average levels of deprivation and is mainly White British. Fieldhead Surgery is registered as a partnership between Dr Steven Joyner, Dr David Oliver, Dr Louise Oliver, Dr Jalil Ahmed and Dr Hannah Hayward. The five partners work a whole time equivalent (W.T.E) of 3.5 full time GPs. The provider also has two advanced nurse practitioners (one male, one female) who work a W.T.E of 1.57 posts. The practice also has two part time female practice nurse equivalent to 1.44 W.T.E, and a full time health care assistant.

The practice manager is supported by her assistant and 12 part time reception and administrative staff.

The practice at Fieldhead Surgery is open Monday to Friday with telephone services from 8am to 6pm and access to the surgery from 8.15am to 6pm. The practice closes for lunch between 12.30pm to 1.15pm each, day with patients directed to the on call doctor via a mobile number for urgent queries during this time.

Surgeries run from 8.15am to 12.30pm and from 1.15pm to 6pm. When the surgery is closed patients are advised of the NHS 111 service for non –urgent medical advice and are directed to a local out of hours provider, Local Care Direct.

Updated 6 January 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Fieldhead Surgery on 20 September 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 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:

• Implement effective cleaning arrangements to maintain satisfactory levels of domestic hygiene throughout the practice.

• Continue to address the low number of carers on the practice register to assure themselves that carers are aware of support available to them.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 6 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.

• 78% of eligible diabetic patients on the register had achieved a blood sugar of 59 mmol or less in the preceding 12 months. This demonstrated that their diabetes was being well controlled. This was 7% higher than the local average and 8% higher than the national average. In addition 90% of diabetic patients had received a foot examination to check for nerve or skin damage associated with their condition. This was 4% higher than the local average and 1% higher than the national average.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and were offered 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 6 January 2017

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 and in line with or higher than local and national averages.

• 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 86%, which was higher than the CCG average of 85% and the national average of 81%.

• A full range of contraceptive services including implants and coils were provided by two GPs at the practice.

• 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.

Updated 6 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.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The practice maintained good links with local care homes and the care home support team.

• Patients experiencing loneliness were offeredreferral to local voluntary groups that could offer a befriending and support service.

• Older patients who did not respond to recall letters were followed up by the practice.

Updated 6 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. Telephone call backs were offered for people unable to attend the surgery as extended hours were not currently available at the practice.

• The practice was proactive in offering online services such as appointment booking and medication requests as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 6 January 2017

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

• 83% of patients diagnosed with dementia  had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was  1% lower than the national average.

• 96% of eligible patients experiencing a serious mental illness had an up to date care plan. This was 7% higher than the national average.

• 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.

• Patients with mental health issues were actively followed up by the practice if they missed an appointment and were visited at home if appropriate.

• 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 6 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.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability and regularly undertook home visits and annual reviews in a patient’s home environment if this was preferred.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients in particular those experiencing issues with addiction.

• 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.