This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Park Medical Centre on 20 November 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

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.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it urgently.
• A systematic approach was taken in working with other organisations to improve care outcomes, tackle health inequalities and obtain best value for money.
• There was a clear proactive approach to seeking out and embedding new ways of providing care and treatment.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Continue to implement processes to improve childhood immunisation uptake.

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.

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Park Medical Centre on 1 March 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. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.

• Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive.

• 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 had appointed a pharmacist who was responsible for the prescribing processes and carrying out reviews of long term condition (LTC) patients. Due to the success of the pilot the CCG agreed that five other local practices can implement similar posts and Park Medical Centre pharmacist was leading the recruitment.

• 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. For example, last year’s survey had identified concerns about the time it takes to check in when the reception is busy. As a result the practice had installed an electronic checking in system.

• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

• The practice actively reviewed complaints and how they are managed and responded to, and made improvements as a result.

• The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with staff.

• The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.

We saw some areas of outstanding practice including:

• In July 2014 the practice became responsible for a care home with 146 people. At the time of registration of these patients the GPs found very few had had end of life care planning (3%) or resuscitation decisions made (6%). At the time of our inspection we found 81% patients had care plans and 47% had resuscitation decisions, which had been agreed with the relatives and the nursing staff at the home.

• There was a clear proactive approach to seeking out and embedding new ways of providing care and treatment and the practice took part in local pilot schemes to improve outcomes for patients in the area. For example, the practice had appointed a pharmacist who was responsible for the prescribing processes and carrying out reviews of LTC patients. We noted there were clear outcome measures in place to assess the impact and success of the pilot. Due to the success of the pilot the CCG had agreed that five other local practices had decided to implement similar posts and Park Medical Centre pharmacist was leading the recruitment for these practices. It was also agreed that they would also manage these pharmacists.

However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

• The practice should consider purchasing a defibrillator or carry out an appropriate risk assessment.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice