Watton Place Clinic

Updated 23 August 2016

Watton Place Clinic provides a range of primary medical services to the residents of Watton-At-Stone and the surrounding villages. The practice has been at its current location of 60 High Street, Watton-At-Stone, Hertfordshire, SG14 3SY since 1991. The building is a Grade 1, 15th century building that has been converted into a surgery. The practice has a branch surgery at Benington Surgery, Oak Tree Close, Benington, Hertfordshire, SG2 7QZ which was not inspected as part of this inspection.

The practice is pre-dominantly White British with a higher than average number of patients aged 40 to 69 years. National data indicates the area is one of low deprivation. The practice has approximately 4,950 patients with services provided under a general medical services (GMS) contract, a nationally agreed contract with NHS England.

The practice is led by two male GP partners and employs two female practice nurses. There are a number of dispensary, reception and administrative staff led by a practice manager.

The practice is open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and from 8am to 1pm Wednesday. There is an emergency telephone number for patients to contact a GP on Wednesday after 1pm for urgent medical attention. The branch practice is open on a Wednesday afternoon according to need.

When the practice is closed, out-of-hours services are provided by Herts Urgent Care and can be accessed via the NHS 111 service.

Updated 23 August 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Watton Place Clinic on 15 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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.
• The practice held regular staff and clinical meetings where learning was shared from significant events and complaints.
• They worked well with the multidisciplinary team to plan and implement care for their patients.
• 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 was in an old 15th century building but the facilities were 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, upon which it acted.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Implement a system to monitor the use of blank prescription forms.

• Develop systems to identify and support more carers in their patient population.

• Review the national GP patient survey results and identify areas of improvement.

• The practice should consider national guidance on the availability of emergency equipment and risk assess what is needed at their practice

• Ensure there are regular checks of the new oxygen and defibrillator to ensure it is fit for use and ensure all staff are trained to use it.

• Ensure the patient participation group (PPG) is developed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 23 August 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.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was comparable to the national average. The practice achieved 91% of available points compared to the national average of 89%.

• 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 23 August 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 were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 83%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 83% 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 and health visitors.

Updated 23 August 2016

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

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

• Care plans were in place and reviewed annually

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

• They provided a delivery service for housebound patients to receive their medicines.

Updated 23 August 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.

• Telephone consultations with GPs were available for patients who had difficulty attending the practice, for example, those at work during the practice opening hours.

• 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.

• The practice offered a phlebotomy service for patients to have blood tests taken at the surgery rather than travel to hospital.

Updated 23 August 2016

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

• 100% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face-to-face meeting in the last 12 months, which was better than the 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 23 August 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 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.

• The practice identified patients who were also carers and placed an alert on their electronic record to inform the GP and other staff in the practice. They had identified 25 patients as carers, which was 0.5% of the practice list.