Archived: Woodside Health Centre

Updated 7 December 2016

The practice operates from 3 Enmore Road, London, SE25 5NT. The practice is based in the Croydon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area, although the practice also accept patients from within the Bromley CCG area. The practice was formed in April 2016 following the closure of a previous practice on the same premises. On the day of the inspection there were 5470 patients registered at the practice, although the practice population was increasing as it is a new practice.

The GP team includes a female GP partner, a male GP partner, a female salaried GP, and two male salaried GPs. The practice is reviewing the number of clinical sessions per week as the practice list size increases using national guidelines, although at the time of the inspection was equivalent to 3 whole time equivalent. The nursing team includes a female practice nurse and a female health care assistant. The clinical team is supported by a practice/business manager, a receptionist manager and seven reception/administrative staff.

The practice is open from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Extended hours are available between 6:30pm and 8:00pm on Wednesdays. The practice offers appointments throughout the day during opening times.

The premises operates over two floors of a purpose built building which houses two other GP practices. On the ground floor there is a treatment room, a phlebotomy room for blood testing, a minor surgery area, a waiting area and patient toilets (one with wheelchair access) which are all shared with the other practices. The practice has six consulting rooms of its own and a reception area. On the first floor, which is accessible by a lift, there are administrative offices.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning services, maternity and midwifery services, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The practice has not been inspected previously by the CQC. However, the practice from which the practice was formed was inspected in 2015 and had been placed in special measures. As a going concern from the previous practice, Woodside Health Centre was also in special measures at the time of the inspection.

Updated 7 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woodside Health Centre (also called Country Park Practice) on 15 July 2016. The practice does not have an overall rating at this stage, as the practice has not been operating for a sufficient time for effective, caring and responsive to be rated.

We had previously conducted an announced comprehensive inspection of the practice’s predecessor Woodside Group Practice on 2 September 2015. As a result of our findings during that visit, the practice was rated as good for being safe and caring, requires improvement for being effective and responsive, and inadequate for being well-led. This resulted in a rating of requires improvement overall. We found that the provider had breached a regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008; Regulation 17 (1) (2)(a)(b)(e) good governance, and because they had not made sufficient improvements since their last inspection we took the decision to place the practice into Special Measures. The former location of Woodside Group practice was subsequently closed and two new locations (one of which is Woodside Health Centre) were formed under two new partnerships.

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 with a named GP 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Ensure that all staff have received fire safety and information governance training as soon as possible.

• Improving the identification of those patients with caring responsibilities so that the practice can provide appropriate support, signposting and guidance.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by this service.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 7 December 2016

The practice was inspected for providing services to patients with long term conditions but there was not sufficient evidence to rate at this stage. The practice provided early information about how they provided care for these patients, but this can not be confirmed until the practice has been operating for a full year.

• Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• Data gathered by the practice after the first three months showed that outcomes were projected to be in line with national averages.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 7 December 2016

The practice was inspected for providing services to families, children and young people, but there was not sufficient evidence to rate at this stage. The practice provided early information about how they provided care for these patients, but this can not be confirmed until the practice has been operating for a full year.

• 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 A&E attendances.

• Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 7 December 2016

The practice was inspected for providing services to older patients but there was not sufficient evidence to rate at this stage. The practice provided early information about how they provided care for these patients, but this can not be confirmed until the practice has been operating for a full year.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• All patients over the age of 75 had a named GP.

Updated 7 December 2016

The practice was inspected for providing services to working age patients but there was not sufficient evidence to rate at this stage. The practice provided early information about how they provided care for these patients, but this can not be confirmed until the practice has been operating for a full year.

• The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.

• The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 7 December 2016

The practice was inspected for providing services to patients experiencing poor mental health but there was not sufficient evidence to rate at this stage. The practice provided early information about how they provided care for these patients, but this can not be confirmed until the practice has been operating for a full year.

• Data gathered by the practice after the first three months showed that outcomes were projected to be in line with national averages

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 7 December 2016

The practice was inspected for providing services to patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable but there was not sufficient evidence to rate at this stage. The practice provided early information about how they provided care for these patients, but this can not be confirmed until the practice has been operating for a full year.

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including homeless people, travellers and those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff 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.