Archived: Dr Shoeb Suryani Also known as Hill Street Surgery

Updated 20 July 2017

Dr Shoeb Suryani is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as an individual GP. The practice is located in Wolverhampton and has good transport links for patients travelling by public transport. Services are provided to patients on the ground floor of the premises and all areas are easily accessible by all patients.

The practice team consists of a lead GP and a salaried GP (one male and one female). The lead GP works five sessions per week and the salaried GP, four sessions. The lead GP is also the owner of the practice. The GPs are supported by a practice nurse and a healthcare assistant, who both work part time. Clinical staff are supported by a practice manager, business manager and seven administration / receptionist staff. Two of the reception/administration staff have a dual role and also work as healthcare assistants. In total there are 12 staff employed either full or part time hours to meet the needs of patients. The practice also use GP locums at times of absence to support the clinicians and meet the needs of patients at the practice.

The practice is open between 8.30am and 6.30pm Monday, Wednesday, Friday, 8.30am to 7.30pm on Tuesday and 8am to 1pm on Thursday. Appointments are from 9am to 11.30am every morning, 1.30pm to 3.30pm on Monday, 4.30pm to 6.50pm on Tuesday, 4.30pm to 5.50pm on Wednesday and 3.30pm to 4.50pm on Friday. This practice does not provide an out-of-hours service to its patients but has alternative arrangements for patients to be seen when the practice is closed. Patients are directed to Wolverhampton Doctors on Call service when the practice is closed on Thursday afternoons from 1pm to 6.30pm. At all other times when the practice is closed patients are directed to the out of hours service provided by Vocare via the NHS 111 service.

The practice has a General Medical Services contract with NHS England to provide medical services to approximately 1,769 patients. It provides Directed Enhanced Services, such as childhood vaccinations and immunisations and the care of patients with a learning disability. The practice has a higher proportion of mainly male patients aged 45 to 54, 60 to 69, 75 to 79 and 85 plus years when compared with the average across England. The practice is located in one of the most deprived areas of Wolverhampton. People living in more deprived areas tend to have a greater need for health services. There is a higher practice value for income deprivation affecting children and older people in comparison to the practice average across England. The level of income deprivation affecting children of 34% is higher than the national average of 20%. The level of income deprivation affecting older people is higher than the national average (29% compared to 16%).

Updated 20 July 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Shoeb Suryani on 27 June 2016. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing safe services.

We issued requirement notices in relation to:

• Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 Fit and proper persons involved.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Dr Shoeb Suryani on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 22 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations we identified at our previous inspection on 27 June 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had reviewed its recruitment procedures to ensure that all necessary employment checks were completed for all staff employed and the required information maintained safely.
• The recording of significant events had been reviewed and they were sufficiently detailed to show that concerns identified were appropriately followed up to prevent further occurrences and ensure improvements made were appropriate.
• Arrangements were in place for sharing alerts, best practice guidance and the learning outcomes from significant events, incidents and near misses with staff.
• The practice’s complaint handling procedures had been reviewed to ensure that the appropriate management of verbal complaints were included. Staff were made aware of the procedure to follow. We saw that four complaints had been received since the last inspection. Records available showed that these were responded to in a timely manner, they detailed the action taken, contact was made with the complainant and the improvements made and any learning was shared with staff.

At this inspection we found that the practice had addressed all the concerns raised and is now rated as good for providing safe services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 30 September 2016

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

• Nurse practitioners and practice nurses had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
• The percentage of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) who had a review undertaken including an assessment of breathlessness using the Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (the degree of breathlessness related to five specific activities) in the preceding 12 months was 96%. This was higher than the national average of 90%. COPD is the name for a collection of lung diseases.
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. A call and recall system was in place to ensure patients were sent an appointment for a review of their health and medicines needs.
• The named GP worked with relevant healthcare professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care to patients with complex needs.

Updated 30 September 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.
• Immunisation rates for all standard childhood immunisations were similar to the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) immunisation rates.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 94%, which was above the national average of 82%.

Updated 30 September 2016

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

• The practice offered personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.
• Older patients were seen by a doctor or received triage assessed care on the day they contacted the practice.
• Home visits and flexible appointments were available for older patients.
• The practice provided a service to a nursing rehabilitation care home and carried out visits to the home when requested.
• Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people.

Updated 30 September 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 appointment telephone line was open between 8.30am and 6.30pm and extended hours were offered one evening per week.
• The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs for this age group.

Updated 30 September 2016

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

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people who experienced poor mental health, including those with dementia.
• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.
• The practice held a register of 15 patients who experienced poor mental health. Clinical data for the year 2014/15 showed that 92% of patients on the practice register who experienced poor mental health had a comprehensive agreed care plan in the preceding 12 months. This was comparable to the national average of 88%.
• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• The percentage of patients diagnosed with dementia whose care had been reviewed in a face to face review in the preceding 12 months was 100%, which was higher than the national average of 84%. The practice clinical exception rate of 5.9% for this clinical area was lower than the local CCG average of 7.7% and the England average of 8.3%.
• All staff had a good understanding of how to support people with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 30 September 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 with a learning disability and carried out annual health checks for these patients.
• 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.
• 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.
• The practice worked closely with local communities including a refugee and migrant centre to discuss how it could effectively support the health care needs of the growing migrant population that had registered with the practice.