Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 23 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Regular meetings were in place to support learning from internal and external incidents.
• The practice used proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example Dr Sennik is actively involved in a local Co-ordinate My Care and Older People Network.
• Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were generally involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet patients’ needs. For example, the practice is part of Eltham GP Practice Network, works with the neighbouring pharmacy and has developed a weekly phlebotomy service to the practice population.
• The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group (PPG.) For example the reception counter was lowered to better support wheelchair users.
• The practice was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• The practice had a clear vision which had patient quality as its top priority.
• The practice had a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider should make some improvements.

The provider should:

• Review staff understanding of codings to support accuracy of QOF reporting.
• Recording of complaints could be more detailed.
• Ensure that carers are identified and recorded so their needs are known and can be met.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

On this occasion, we did not speak with people using the service as part of our inspection. We found the provider had made improvements to ensure that patients’ needs were adequately assessed and care planned in a way that met those needs.

We spoke with a member of the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and patients who had come in for their appointment. All patients told us that it was easy to get an appointment and were complimentary about the reception staff. One person said "It’s very easy to get an appointment". Another person told us the receptionist staff were “very lovely, very friendly”.

We found that people were mostly given appropriate information regarding the services available, were involved in their care and their privacy and dignity was respected. There were measures in place for the protection of children and vulnerable adults. Medicines were managed appropriately and the practice had some systems in place to ensure that the quality of the service was assessed and monitored. However we also found that in some cases patients’ needs were not assessed and care not planned in a way that met those needs. In those cases we found that care that was delivered was not based on current national guidance.