Archived: Camrose Medical Partnership

Updated 10 August 2016

Camrose Medical Partnership is situated in a residential area of Basingstoke. The practice has approximately 11,500 patients registered with it.

The practice has six partners, one salaried GP and two contracted GPs who provide a total of 49 sessions, which equates to just over six whole time equivalents. There are five female GPs and four male GPs. In addition to the GPs there are four practice nurses and two healthcare assistants who provide the equivalent of just over 4 whole time workers. The clinical team are support by two practice managers, a reception manager, a prescriptions manager and a team of 17 reception and administration staff. Two of the reception and administration team are personal assistants to GPs.

The practice is open from 8am until 8pm on Mondays; 8am until 6.30pm Tuesdays to Fridays; and 8am until 11am on Saturday mornings. Appointments are available between these times and the reception is also open. When the practice is closed patients are requested to access the out of hours GP service, via the NHS 111 Service.

The practice is in one of the most deprived areas of Basingstoke. A total of 20% of patients are aged 16 years or under; and 64% are aged 16 to 64 years, with a slighter higher than the national average of patients aged 45 to 54 years in this group. The practice has 7% of patients aged 75 years and older, which is in line with national averages.

We inspected the only location at:

St Andrews Medical Centre

Western Way

Basingstoke

Hampshire

RG22 6ER

Updated 10 August 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Camrose Medical Partnership on 9 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.
• 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 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.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should improve:

• Review processes for auditing high risk medicines.

• Review proceeses to make sure prescription paper is logged.

• Review procedures for documenting when non-clinical areas have ben cleaned.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 10 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.

• The practice was able to offer equipment loans for patients, these included blood pressure monitors and blood glucose monitors.

• Performance for diabetes indicators was similar to clinical commissioning group and national averages.

• 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 10 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.

• 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.

• 73% of females aged 25 to 64 years old had attended for cervical screening within the target period.

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

• Morning and afternoon appointments were offered for childhood immunisations.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

• The practice promoted sexual health services for young people, such as Chlamydia screening.

Updated 10 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 patients in its population.

• There was a named GP for all patients aged 75 years and older.

• The practice maintained good working relationships with local pharmacies to ensure arrangements for use of medicine compliance aids, for example, blister packs, were coordinated for the patients which used them.

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

• ctice had a volunteer information point to support patients aged over 55 years, which held a monthly clinic.

Updated 10 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.

• 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.

• Telephone triage calls were available to reduce unnecessary face to face appointments.

• Extended hours appointments were available.

Updated 10 August 2016

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

• 95% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was better than national average.

• Performance indicators for mental health conditions were similar to clinical commissioning group and national averages.

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

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients living with dementia.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and those living with dementia.

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Patients were able to access counselling services at the practice.

• 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.

Updated 10 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 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 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.