Derby Road Group Practice

Updated 27 October 2016

Derby Road Group Practice consists of six partners and one salaried GP. There are three male GPs and four female GPs. There are four practice nurses and two healthcare assistants. The clinical team are supported by a practice manager and business manager and a team of administration and reception staff.

The practice premises consist of two adjoining houses. There is a small car park and level access to the building. The premises do not have a passenger lift, but staff will make arrangements for patients to be seen on the ground floor when needed.

The practice is in an urban area of Portsmouth and has 11,400 patients on its register. The practice population’s distribution of patients according to age is similar to the national average. The practice participates in research and is a teaching practice for doctors training to be GPs. The practice holds a primary medical services contract.

The practice is open at the following times:

Monday 8am until 7.15pm

Tuesday 8am until 6.30pm

Wednesday 8am until 7pm

Thursday 8am until 7pm

Friday 8am until 6.30pm

In addition the practice is open on the first and third Saturday of the month from 8.am until 10.30am. When the practice is closed, patients are advised to contact the out of hours GP via the NHS 111 service, or attend a local walk in clinic at weekends.

We inspected the main location which is situated at:

27-29 Derby Road, North End, Portsmouth. PO2 8HW. There is a branch location situated at 358 Copnor Road, Copnor, Portsmouth PO3 5EL, which was not visited as part of this inspection. Staff at the practice work across both sites.

Updated 27 October 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a desk based inspection of Derby Road Group practice on 27 September 2016 to monitor whether the registered provider had met the requirement related to medicines management, made at our inspection in January 2016. Areas which did not meet the regulations were:

The provider did not have suitable systems in place to maintain fire safety and ensure electrical wiring in the premises was safe.

• The fire alarm system was checked twice a year; however, regular checks had not been made on the fire alarm system call points used when a fire is detected to sound the alarm. The practice did not have any emergency lighting on the upper floors.

• We noted that a five yearly electrical wiring safety check had not been carried out.

At this inspection we found that the provider had taken action to meet the requirement:

Key findings:

• The provider had a full fire risk assessment carried out and made provision for emergency lighting as recommended in the risk assessment. Logs had been commenced of checks of fire alarm call points and there were suitable processes in place to ensure the system was maintained and checked by an external company six monthly.

• The provider had had a full electrical wiring check carried out and had actions minor repairs that were required.

The full report published on 26 March 2016 should be read in conjunction with this report. The rating for the safe domain is now good and the overall rating remains good.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 22 March 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 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.

• Joint clinics were carried out for patients with diabetes with a diabetic specialist nurse from the local.

Updated 22 March 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 accident and emergency 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 81%, which was comparable to 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 paediatric nurses who worked in the community.

Updated 22 March 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 patients in its population.

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

• The practice was a pilot site for Portsmouth’s Integrated Care Virtual Ward, a multidisciplinary meeting where care and treatment was discussed and planned for. Patients discussed at these meetings were at risk of unnecessary hospital admissions and were frail.

Updated 22 March 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 for this age group.

Updated 22 March 2016

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

• A total of 98% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is better than the national average of 84%.

• 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 22 March 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 homeless patients, travellers and those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams 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.