Archived: Dr Michael Abdou Also known as Blossomfield Surgery

Updated 29 September 2016

Dr Michael Abdou’s practice is a single handed GP practice located within the Blossomfield Surgery in Solihull, an area of the West Midlands. The practice is part of NHS Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and provides primary medical services to approximately 2,300 patients in the local community under a personal medical services contract (PMS). A PMS contract is a locally agreed alternative to the standard GMS contract used when services are agreed locally with a practice which may include additional services beyond the standard contract. The practice offers a range of clinics and services including minor surgery, sports injuries, diabetes, asthma and child immunisations.

The practice is run by one GP (male). There is also a practice nurse. The non-clinical team consists of administrative and reception staff and a recently appointed practice manager.

The practice serves a higher than average population of people aged 65 and above years. The area served compared to England as a whole is ranked at ten out of ten, with ten being the least deprived.

The practice is open to patients between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Extended hours appointments are available from 6.30pm to 8pm on Tuesday. Emergency appointments are available daily. Telephone consultations are also available and home visits for patients who are unable to attend the surgery. The out of hours service is provided by Badger Out of Hours Service and NHS 111 service and information about this is available on the practice website.

The practice is part of NHS Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) which has 38 member practices. The CCG serve communities across the borough, covering a population of approximately 238,000 people. A CCG is an NHS Organisation that brings together local GPs and experienced health care professionals to take on commissioning responsibilities for local health services.

Updated 29 September 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Blossomfield Surgery on 12 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as Good.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses and there was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• The practice had strong, visible clinical and managerial leadership and staff felt supported by management.
• 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 had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• Governance and risk management arrangements were in place and we saw completed action plans.
• Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet patients’ needs.
• 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.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.
• Staff worked with multidisciplinary teams to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs. We saw evidence that multidisciplinary team meetings took place every six weeks.

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

• Continue to review the registers for patients with learning disabilities to ensure appropriate reviews are in place.

• Update staff records with immunisation results.
• Consider how to proactively identify and support carers.
• Continue to engage patients to engage with the patient participation group to gain feedback.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 29 September 2016

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed and patients who were housebound received reviews and vaccinations at home.
• Patients with long term conditions had a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For example, the practice had 97 patients on the asthma register and 84% had received a review in the past 12 months.
• The practice was proactive in encouraging patients to attend reviews. For example, the practice had 100 patients on the diabetic register and 98% had received a foot risk assessment in the past 12 months.
• 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 29 September 2016

• There were policies, procedures and contact numbers to support and guide staff should they have any safeguarding concerns about children.
• The practice held nurse-led baby immunisation clinics and vaccination targets were in line with the national averages.
• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 81% which was in line with 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 school nurses. The midwife provided antenatal care every other week at the practice.

Updated 29 September 2016

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.
• The practice had systems in place to identify and assess patients who were at high risk of admission to hospital. We saw evidence that patients had a care plan and were offered same day appointments. Patients who were discharged from hospital were reviewed to establish the reason for admission and care plans were updated.
• The practice had 33 patients on their unplanned admissions register and all had agreed care plans in place.
• The practice worked closely with multi-disciplinary teams so patient’s conditions could be safely managed in the community.
• The practice support pharmacist carried out medicine reviews and held regular meetings with the GPs to discuss patient’s needs.

Updated 29 September 2016

• 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.
• Extended surgery hours were offered on Tuesday evening from 6.30pm to 8pm for patients who worked and could not attend during normal surgery hours.
• The practice provided a health check to all new patients and carried out routine NHS health checks for patients aged 40-74 years.
• The practice offered extended hours. Results from the national GP survey in January 2016 showed 84% of patients were satisfied with the surgery’s opening hours which was higher than the local average of 76% and the national average of 78%.

Updated 29 September 2016

• 80% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was lower 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. The practice had 14 patients on their mental health register and 100% had had their care plans reviewed in the last 12 months.

Updated 29 September 2016

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including homeless people and patients with alcohol or drug dependency. The practice had nine patients on the vulnerable list and all had received a face to face review in the past 12 months.
• 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 and held meetings with the district nurses and community teams every two months.
• 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 offered longer appointments and annual health checks for people with a learning disability. There were 13 patients on the learning disability register, but only two patients had received their annual health checks. The practice did send reminders to patients of their appointments and was actively trying to reduce the number of patients who did not attend the health checks.
• The practice had seven patients on the palliative care register and 80% of the patients had had regular face to face reviews.