South Park Medical Practice

Updated 13 October 2016

South Park Medical Practice is situated in Sevenoaks, Kent and has a registered patient population of approximately 4,940. This is a prime commuter area and 66% of the patient population are either employed or in full-time education. Only 1% of the patient population are unemployed compared to the national average of 5%. Twenty nine percent of the patient population are under the age of 18 years compared to the national average of 21%.

The practice staff consist of two female GP partners, one female salaried GP, two female practice nurses, one practice manager as well as administration and reception staff. Patient areas are on the ground floor and are accessible to patients with mobility issues as well as parents with children and babies.

The practice is not a teaching or a training practice (teaching practice have medical students and training practice have GP trainees and newly qualified doctors).

The practice has a personal medical services contract with NHS England for delivering primary care services to the local community.

Services are provided from South Park, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1ED only.

South Park Medical Practice is open Monday to Friday between the hours of 8am to 6.30pm. Extended hours appointments are offered Wednesday 6.30 pm to 9pm. Primary medical services are available to patients via an appointments system. There are a range of clinics for all age groups as well as availability of specialist nursing treatment and support.

There are arrangements with other providers (Integrated Care 24) via the NHS 111 system to deliver services to patients outside of the practice’s working hours.

Updated 13 October 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at South Park Medical Practice on 26 July 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 for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients, visitors and staff 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 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 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 improvement are:

• Record the content of employment reference contacts.

• Ensure that the carers register is proactively developed.

• Ensure that all informally resolved matters of patient dissatisfaction are recorded.

• Devise an auditable record of cleaning for clinical equipment.

• Devise a system to ensure that training records are monitored and up to date.

• Ensure that the system to record the usage of prescription forms and pads, continues to be monitored and auditable.

• Ensure that further analysis and activity is undertaken to improve upon patient survey performance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 13 October 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.
• The percentage of patients on the diabetes register, with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months was 89% compared to the Clinical Commissioning Group(CCG) average of 88% and the national average of 88%.
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
• All these patients had a named GP and the practice had set up a recall system to help ensure all relevant patients were invited for 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 13 October 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• There were systems to help 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 (A&E) attendances or those living in challenging circumstances. 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 percentage of women aged 25-64 whose notes recorded that a cervical screening test had been performed in the preceding 5 years was 80% compared to the clinical commissioning group (CCG) average of 84% and the national average of 82%.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• The practice used a locally developed check list for all patients under the age of 16 who were seeking family planning advice. This helped to ensure all aspects of sexual health and parental involvement were discussed.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 13 October 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 patient population.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.
• Elderly patients at risk of hospital admission were identified and referred to the Health and Social Care co-ordinator as a priority.
• The practice cared for a population of approximately 30 residents in a local care home working in partnership with the Intensive Support Team and Nursing Home Staff.
• Elderly patients at risk of hospital admission were identified, and referred to the Health and Social Care Co-ordinator who worked in partnership with the practice to deliver effective, tailor-made care to older patients.
• The practice made good use of a variety of health care professionals to help prevent admissions to hospital that were either unplanned or against the patients’ wishes.

Updated 13 October 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 help ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.
• Extended hours pre-bookable appointments were available Wednesdays between 6.30pm and 9pm.
• Telephone appointments were offered where appropriate.
• The practice made use of tele-dermatology where photographs of skin conditions were reviewed remotely by specialists avoiding the need for attendance at hospital outpatient clinics. This was of particular benefit to the working population.
• 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 13 October 2016

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

• 100% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was better than the clinical commissioning group (CCG) average of 85% and the national average of 84%.
• The percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses whose alcohol consumption had been recorded in the preceding 12 months was 79% with no patients excepted compared to the CCG average of 89% and 10% of patients excepted and the national average of 90% with 10% of patients excepted.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those 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 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 13 October 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice raised ‘alerts’ on the computer system for those patients living in vulnerable circumstances to provide open access to clinical staff at the practice.
• The practice made good use of ‘pop ups’ on the computer system which alerted all staff if a patient was living in vulnerable circumstances or who may have specific requirements which needed to taken into consideration at every contact.
• The practice held a register of patients with a learning disability and offered longer appointments where required.
• The practice worked in partnership with a health and social care co-ordinator, based at South Park, to deliver effective, tailor-made care to vulnerable patients, including those with caring responsibilities, and had forged a close and effective working relationship
• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients including the rapid response team.
• Vulnerable patients at risk of hospital admission were identified and referred to the Health and Social Care co-ordinator as a priority.
• 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.