Archived: Dr Vijay Iyer Also known as The Surgery Hodgson Centre

Updated 3 November 2017

Dr Vijay Iyer, also known as The Hodgson Centre, is a well-established GP practice that has operated in the area for many years. It serves approximately 4400 registered patients and has a personal medical services contract with NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG. It is located in a residential area of Peterborough with good public transport links and parking.

According to information taken from Public Health England, the patient population has a higher than average number of patients aged 35 to 54 years, a lower than average number of patients aged over 60 years, 25 to 34 years and 5 to 9 years compared to the practice average across England.

The practice team consists of two full time GP partners (one female and one male), an advanced nurse practitioner/partner (female), two practice nurses, a health care assistant and a phlebotomist. The clinical team are supported by a practice secretary and four reception staff who work part time. At the time of our inspection practice management duties were shared with another local practice.

The opening times for the practice are Monday to Friday from 8.30am to 6.30pm except on Mondays when the practice closes from 1pm until 4pm. Extended hours appointments are available after 6pm on Mondays and Thursdays. The advanced nurse practitioner also provided

early appointments from 8am on Thursdays. When the surgery is closed patients access the out of hour’s service provided by Herts Urgent Care via the NHS 111 service. The practice website includes this information including how to locate the local walk-in-centre.

Updated 3 November 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Vijay Iyer (known as The Hodgson Medical Centre) on 25 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good with a rating of requires improvement for providing safe services. We then carried out an announced focussed inspection on 28 March 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 25 April 2016.

The reports on the 25 April 2016 and 28 March 2017 inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Vijay Iyer on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 11 October 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulation that we identified in our previous inspection on 28 March 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Overall the practice remains rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Premises related risks were addressed appropriately, specifically outstanding actions following a legionella assessment.
• Recruitment procedures included pre-employment checks that were in line with Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 4 July 2016

The provider was rated as good for the care of patients with long-term conditions.

• Nursing staff supported the GPs in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• Patients with long-term conditions 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 including those at the end of life, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care. These patients were reviewed at the weekly clinical meeting.

Updated 4 July 2016

The provider was rated as 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 A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

• 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.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 79%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 73% and the national average of 82%.

• 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 4 July 2016

The provider was rated as good for the care of older people.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care with a named GP 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. This included home visits to administer influenza vaccines early on in the season.

• Patients who had difficulty getting to a local pharmacy to collect regular prescriptions could have their medicines delivered to their home address.

• There were disabled facilities and a disabled parking space at the front of the practice.

• The practice worked closely with the multidisciplinary team to ensure care plans were in place to support patients to stay at home and avoid unnecessary admission to hospital.

• The practice provided GP support to patients who lived in a neighbouring sheltered housing scheme and attended any emergency situations.

Updated 4 July 2016

The provider was rated as good for the care of working age people( including those recently retired and students)

• 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. For example extended hours services were available one morning andtwo evenings each week. Telephone consultations were also available and the practice provided same day appointments at the end of surgery if these were required.

• 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. For example, patients were able to book appointments and request repeat prescriptions online. There was also an electronic prescription service.

Updated 4 July 2016

The provider was rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

• 91% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was better than the national average of 84%.

• The practice scored above the national average for all other mental health indicators although there was a higher then average level of exception reporting in most areas.

For example, 100% of patients with long term mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder and other psychoses had an agreed documented care plan recorded in the preceding 12 months, compared to a national average of 88%.

• 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 4 July 2016

The provider was rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including 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 such as the Citizens Advice Bureau and Addaction (drug, alcohol and mental health support charity).

• 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.