Archived: Westfield Health Centre

Updated 21 January 2016

Danum Medical Services Ltd are a private provider who have been operating from the Westfield Health Centre in Sheffield since 1 January 2015. Due to the length of time the provider had been operating from this location, the information we had about this provided was very limited. For instance, all of the data relating to Quality and Outcomes Framework (otherwise known as QOF, which is an incentive scheme that is aimed at measuring and improving the quality of general practice care for specific medical conditions) related to the previous provider.

The practice is based in a purpose built health centre and has approximately 1700 registered patients.

Westfield Health Centre has six salaried GPs (two female and four male) and one practice nurse. The clinical staff are supported by a practice manager and a team of experienced reception/administration staff.

The practice provides Alternative Primary Medical Services (APMS) under a contract with NHS England. They also offer a range of services such as minor surgery, maternity services and childhood vaccination and immunisations.

The practice is open between 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Appointments are from 8am to 6pm daily. When the practice is closed, out-of-hours services are provided by Local Care Direct.

Updated 21 January 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Danum Medical Services Ltd at Westfield Health Centre on 21 August 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles.
• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety, for example infection prevention and control procedures and health and safety assessments.
• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents, near misses and any identified safeguarding issues.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• The practice sought patient views on how improvements could be made to the service, through the use of patient surveys and the practice’s patient participation group (PPG).
• Urgent appointments were available for patients the same day as requested.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in care and decisions about their treatment.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice funded a private taxi service for those patients who found it difficult to access the practice. This was funded at the discretion of the practice based on their knowledge of the patient.

However there were areas where the provider should make improvements:

• The doctors working at the practice required further training on the clinical system in order to access electronic registers i.e. Quality and Outcomes Framework performance.
• Although there was an established timetable for clinical and non-clinical staff meetings, there was no process in place to share information with staff members who were not present.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated good for the care of people with long term conditions. Nursing staff were trained in specific areas; for example Diabetes and Asthma. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named clinician worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated 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 accident and emergency (A&E) attendances. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. The practice told us all young children were prioritised and the under-fives were seen on the same day as requested. The practice had direct links with health visitors who were located on the same site and had access to antenatal and post natal care with a midwife on site.

Updated 21 January 2016

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. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. The practice also funded a private taxi service for those patients who found it difficult to access the practice. This was funded at the discretion of the practice based on their knowledge of the patient.

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated good for the care of working age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of this population group had been identified and the practice offered appointments between the hours of 8am and 6.30pm to ensure patients could access appointments outside of normal working hours and school time. The practice also offered online services, telephone triage/advice and a full range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs of this age group.

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). All patients had a named GP. Annual health checks were offered for these patients. The practice also offered home visits to those patients who became anxious when attending the surgery for an appointment.

The practice actively screened patients for dementia and maintained a register of those diagnosed. It carried out advance care planning for these patients. The practice had also established links with the local memory clinic and could make referrals to the clinic.

The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of people in this population group, for example the local mental health team.

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated 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 who had a learning disability. Longer appointments were available for patients as needed.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in children, young people and adults whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. They 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. The practice worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of this population group. It provided information on how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.