Archived: Dr Neil Ellwood Also known as Lamberhurst Surgery

Updated 21 January 2016

Dr Neil Ellwood is a GP practice based in Lamberhurst. There were 2, 400 patients on the practice list.

There is one principal GP (male) and two salaried GPs (both female). The GPs are supported by a practice manager, a practice nurse and an administrative team.

Dr Neil Ellwood is a dispensing practice, staffed by trained dispensers’.

The practice is open 8am to 12.30pm and 1.30pm to 6.30pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, 8am to 1.30pm on Thursday and extended hours are offered on Monday until 8.00pm. Patients requiring a GP outside of normal working hours are advised to contact the GP Out of Hours service provided by Integrated Care 24 (known as IC 24).

The practice has a Personal Medical Service (PMS) contract and also offers enhanced services for example; extended hours.

Services are delivered from;

Dr Neil Ellwood, The Surgery, The Down, Lamberhurst, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN3 8EX

Updated 21 January 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Neil Ellwood on 10 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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.
• 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.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
• The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they met people’s needs.
• Urgent appointments were available the same day but not necessarily with a GP of their choice.
• The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a result of survey responses and complaints received.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. A business plan was in place, was monitored, regularly reviewed and discussed with all staff. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff with evidence of team working across all roles.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.

However there were areas where the provider should make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

• Review its policy in relation to complaints, in order to ensure they contain the contact details of external bodies to approach when complainants are dissatisfied with the practices response.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• Nursing staff had lead roles 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.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medicine needs were being met.

• For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is 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.

• QOF immunisation rates were lower for one of the standard childhood immunisations administered to patients under one year of age (whilst the rates were deemed low, this equated to two patients in total), meaning that the majority of children registered at the practice had received their immunisations. Where rates were lower, the practice was taking action to review the patients.

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

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 85%, which was above the national average of 82%.

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

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated good for the care of older people.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and offered home visits, even out of hours, if necessary as well as rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The practice had daily contact with district nurses and participated in monthly or quarterly meetings with other healthcare professionals to discuss any concerns.

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is 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.

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

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

• All patients

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

• It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency (A&E) where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs and dementia.

• 100% of people diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months.

Updated 21 January 2016

The practice is 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 those with a learning disability. The practice had carried out annual health checks for all patients with a learning disability. Where patients had declined or requested a check at a later date, this had been clearly recorded in the patients’ record. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff had been trained 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.