Dr MOG Sarder's Practice Also known as Deptford Medical Centre

Updated 8 June 2016

Deptford Medical Centre is located in New Cross in the London Borough of Lewisham. The practice serves approximately 2500 people living in the local area. The local area is diverse. People living in the area spoke a range of different languages and expressed different cultural needs. There are higher than average numbers of working-age people living in the local area and a higher proportion of these are unemployed, compared to the national average

The practice operates from a single site. It is situated on the ground floor of a building with residential flats situated above the premises. The premises were purpose-built to house a primary care practice. There are three consulting rooms on the ground floor. The premises are fully wheelchair accessible with level access and a disabled toilet on site. There are also disabled parking spaces available close to the entrance.

There are two GP partners (one male, one female). There is also a locum GP (female) who has worked at the practice for the past year. Overall the practice provides 13 GP partner sessions and 1 locum GP session each week.There is also a practice manager, a practice nurse, and two health care assistants, as well as reception and administrative staff.

The practice offers appointments on the day and books appointments up to a month in advance. The practice has appointments from 9.00am to 6.30pm on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays. They are open on Tuesdays from 9.00am to 7.30pm and on Wednesdays from 8.00am to 6.30pm. The practice is open for telephone calls from 8.00am Monday to Friday. Patients who need attention outside of these times are directed to call the 111 service for advice and onward referral to other GP out-of-hours services.

Deptford Medical Centre is contracted by NHS England to provide General Medical Services (GMS). They are registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to carry out the following regulated activities: Diagnostic and screening procedures; Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Updated 8 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Deptford Medical Centre on 14 April 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 with the skills, knowledge and experience required 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 make improvements are:

• Carry out clinical audits in accordance with national guidance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 8 June 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.

• Patients with long-term conditions 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.

• The percentage of patients with diabetes with an acceptable average blood sugar readingwas 65% which was lower than the national average of 78%. The practice had recognised the need to improve in this area following an increase in cases of diabetes; the practice had implemented a range of education and monitoring systems with a view to improving outcomes for patients with diabetes. Audits were used to monitor the effectiveness of these programs, but a systematic improvement had yet to be demonstrated.

Updated 8 June 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.

• 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, for example at multi-disciplinary team meetings where higher-risk cases were reviewed.

The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 74%, which was the same as the national average. However, the practice nurse, who carried out the cervical screening programme at the practice, had not carried out a formal audit of their performance.

Updated 8 June 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.

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

The practice monitored the needs of elderly patients who were not able to visit the surgery due to limited mobility. For example, if these patients did not request a repeat prescription at timely intervals, then a member of the practice’s staff called the patient to enquire if any additional help or support was required.

Updated 8 June 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. For example, the practice offered later appointments on Tuesdays to accommodate people who would otherwise be at work.

• 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 8 June 2016

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

• However, the practice could further improve their performance by ensuring that all patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed. Seventy one percent

• 86% of patients experiencing mental health issues had a care plan agreed, which was comparable to the national average.

Updated 8 June 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 people 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.