Archived: John Street Medical Practice

Updated 4 June 2015

John Street Medical Centre is based on the ground floor of a building in the centre of Oldham. There is a car park available.

GDT Healthcare is the provider. GTD Healthcare is a not-for-profit organisation that has several GP practices, out of hours services and walk in centres in the area. All staff are salaried.

Four GPs and four practice nurses worked at the practice, and a healthcare assistant worked there on one day each week.

The practice is open from 7.45am until 7pm on Mondays and Fridays, 7.45am until 7.15pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and from 8am until noon on Saturdays.

The practice delivers commissioned services under an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract. At the time of our inspection 3735 patients were registered with the practice. The practice had young patient population and the majority of patients were Bangladeshi and did not speak English as a first language. 76% of staff were bi-lingual.

Updated 4 June 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at John Street Medical Practice on 17 March 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for all the population groups

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a GP and that 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice had a predominantly Bangladeshi patient population, the majority of which did not speak English as a first language. 76% of staff spoke at least two languages and there was usually a staff member available who could speak with patients in their own language. This meant staff could explain the importance of tests and treatment to patients.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

• The practice should start to have formal meetings for clinical and reception/administrative staff. Minutes should be kept of these meetings.
• The provider should ensure that all GPs have up to date mandatory training, including safeguarding, basic life support and fire safety.
• Appraisals should be up to date for all staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 4 June 2015

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 structured annual review to check that their health and medication needs were being met.

Updated 4 June 2015

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. 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.

Updated 4 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. The practice had a very low percentage of older patients, but all patients over the age of 75 had a named GP. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 4 June 2015

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 open until at least 7pm on weekdays, and from 8am until noon every Saturday morning.

Updated 4 June 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). Patient experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice took this opportunity to carry out any other required health checks, administer vaccinations or give healthcare advice.

Staff had a good understanding in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The practice had sign-posted patients experiencing poor mental health to various support groups and voluntary. Patients could be referred for counselling to nearby services.

Updated 4 June 2015

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. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability.

The practice had told 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.