Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Avenue House & Hasland Partnership on 22 April 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. Learning was applied from events to enhance the delivery of safe care to patients.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed in conjunction with the wider multi-disciplinary team.

• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
• The practice team had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver high quality care and effective treatment, and were supported to develop their roles via a robust appraisal process. A number of clinical staff had undertaken additional training to enhance their skills and had developed areas of special interest to support them in taking lead roles within the practice.
• Feedback from patients was consistently positive about the care they had received. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were actively involved in 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 told us they were able to access care and treatment when they needed to, and had a positive experience when making an appointment. Access to a preferred GP was significantly above local and national averages, and the practice always tried to offer continuity by the same GP consulting with the patient for routine, urgent and telephone appointments or home visits.
• The practice had good facilities and was well-equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. The premises were clean and tidy and the grounds were well maintained.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us that they felt supported by management. The leadership and governance arrangements were robust and focused upon continuous improvement.
• The practice analysed and responded to feedback received from patients. Comments were used to adapt services where possible to best meet patients’ needs.
• There was an active patient participation group which influenced practice developments. For example, a clinician notice board had been prominently displayed at the reception desk to inform patients which GPs were on duty each day.
• The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers and their Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). For example, the practice was dedicated to supporting pilot projects within primary care and was supported by the CCG to trial new developments. For example, one GP had initiated a local project to help reduce the waste of prescribed medicines.
• The practice provided personalised care to those patients at end-of-life. Practice data showed that 92% of patients had died within their preferred place as a consequence of the planning and support offered by the practice working in conjunction with the wider health and social care teams.
• The practice mission statement of ‘helping the person by knowing the person’ was reflected in the continuity of care provided with the same GP. This included the named GP doing their own home visits wherever possible; urgent on the day appointments being allocated to the named GP wherever possible; and telephone consultations being undertaken by the named GP. National patient survey data indicated patients rated the practice highly on continuity of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• The practice should ensure that all actions in respect of infection control audits are documented.
• Ensure that actions from significant event reviews are documented upon completion.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice