Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Saint Vincent Practice on 13 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 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.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice had developed a clinical Care Co-ordinator role to review those admitted to hospital, who attended accident and emergency regularly or used other services frequently. The Care Co-ordinator would meet with the patient at their home or at the practice to review their health and social circumstances, with their carers present when relevant. The Care Co-ordinator was supported by a GP, a nursing assistant and an administrator. Since inception in October 2014, 281 patients had been reviewed by the Care Co-ordinator service. Feedback from patients was extremely positive.  The number of patients with a long term condition admitted to hospital as an emergency was 2% lower than the CCG average of 19%. 

• The premises had been assessed as a safe area for those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable for patients registered with the practice and from the local area. Some people used the practice address as a point of contact for written communication from hospital and social care services. Mail would be delivered to the practice and kept for the person to pick up.

• Where changes to a policy or procedure were made as a result of a complaint, the complainant was invited back into the practice to be appraised of the improvements. This provided the complainant with the opportunity to review the new policy or procedure and provide further comment whether the changes implemented would prevent the same thing happening again.

• The practice facilitated a programme of patient engagement events where practice staff and external speakers facilitated educational events for patients and people from the local community. Topics included living with dementia, social prescribing, cancer care and healthy eating. Patients told us they enjoyed the sessions and found them very informative and people came from other areas to attend.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are: 

• Review the Resuscitation Council UK Quality standards for checking cardiopulmonary resuscitation equipment and implement a weekly checking regime.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. One patient told us: “I feel fully in control.” A patient who was registered as blind told us: “The tone of voice used by the reception staff always makes me feel welcome.”

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. One patient told us: "I feel confident in all the GP’s."

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. One staff member told us: “There is a good culture here amongst all the staff, we all support each other.”

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.