Dr NHR Simpson's Practice Also known as Dr Simpson & Partners

Updated 1 June 2017

Dr NHR Simpson’s Practice provides primary medical care for approximately 8,500 patients living in Barrow on Soar and the neighbouring villages. It is not a dispensing practice.

The number of patients with a long- standing health condition is higher than both the CCG and national average.

The practice only has one location, that being The Health Centre, 27 High Street, Barrow-upon-Soar, Leicestershire LE12 8PY

The service is provided under a General Medical Services contract with West Leicestershire Clinical Commissioning Group.

The area is one of low deprivation. The practice demographics reflect those nationally.

The healthcare is provided by two GP partners, two salaried GPs (whole time equivalent WTE 2.3) Locum GPs provide another 0.5 WTE weekly. There are seven nurses (WTE 4.44), five of whom are prescribers, and two health care assistants. They are supported by receptionists and administration staff.

The surgery is open between 8am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday and offers extended hours from 7am to 8am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The surgery is open throughout lunchtimes, with the exception of Thursday. During that period the surgery still receives and accepts telephone calls.

When the surgery is closed GP out-of- hour’s services are provided by Derbyshire Health United which is accessed via NHS111.

Updated 1 June 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We had carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr NHR Simpson’s Practice on 2 March 2016. The overall rating for the practice was ‘requires improvement’. This was because the practice was rated as ‘requires improvement’ in the key questions of caring and responsive. The full comprehensive report on that inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr NHR Simpson’s Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection on 8 March 2017 to check if improvements had been made. Overall the practice is now rated as ‘Good’.

Our key findings 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 was responsive to the needs of patients and tailored its services to meet those needs.
• 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. However information about complaints was not on display in the patient waiting area.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a 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.
• There was an emphasis on learning and improvement.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements.

The provider should:

• Make information on the complaints system available in the patient waiting area.

• Continue to monitor patient satisfaction with the service provided, particularly with respect to the helpfulness of reception staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 1 June 2017

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

• GPs and nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• A nurse was employed whose primary role was to meet the needs of those patients living with diabetes.

• Diabetes related clinical indicators showed the practice to be performing in line with CCG and national percentages.

• 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 1 June 2017

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.

• 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.

• Rates for cervical screening were comparable to both CCG and national averages.

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

• The practice provided a full range of immunisations for babies, children and young people which were clearly explained on the practice website.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and district nurses. The joint working was promoted and enhanced by virtue of these other healthcare professionals holding their clinics at the surgery.

Updated 1 June 2017

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.

• The practice participated in the unplanned admissions avoidance scheme.

• The practice had made plans to switch to a scheme to identify and meet the needs of frail patients when the admission avoidance scheme ended. Patients had already been coded for severe, moderate and mild frailty and a new template developed.

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

Updated 1 June 2017

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 reflected the needs for this age group.

• Extended opening hours were available on both Tuesday and Wednesday mornings.

• A full range of on-line services were available to meet the needs of this group of patients.

Updated 1 June 2017

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 patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

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

• The practice had identified patients experiencing poor mental health and could provide them with information on how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

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

Updated 1 June 2017

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.

• The practice responded to the needs of the travelling and boating community.

• 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.