Valley Medical Centre

Updated 21 July 2017

Valley Medical Centre is situated on the outskirts of Sheffield city centre. The practice provides services for 9,500 patients under the terms of the NHS Personal Medical Services contract. The practice catchment area is classed as within the group of the fourth less deprived areas in England. The age profile of the practice population is similar to other GP practices in the Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area.

The practice has five GP partners, three female and four male, two salaried GPs, both female, two practice nurses and one healthcare assistant. They are supported by a team of practice management staff and an administration team.

The practice is open between 8.30am and 6pm Monday to Friday. Appointments with staff are available at various times throughout the day. When the practice is closed calls were answered by the out-of-hours service which is accessed via the surgery telephone number or by calling the NHS 111 service.

Updated 21 July 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Valley Medical Centre on 19 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was ‘good’ with ‘requires improvement’ for the ‘safe’ domain. The full comprehensive report on the 19 December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Valley Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 14 June 2017 to review that the practice had addressed the areas for improvement recommended in our previous inspection on 19 December 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those areas since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• We saw evidence that t The practice had developed and implemented a comprehensive protocol and system for the management of MHRA (Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) alerts.
• All clinical and administrative staff, where relevant to their role, had received a DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) check.

• We saw evidence that medications were stored safely on the premises.
• We saw evidence that GPs and practice staff had attended Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 25 January 2017

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.
• Performance for diabetes related indicators was similar to the CCG and the national average. For example, the percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, in whom the last blood test was within normal limits was 77% (CCG average, 78% and national average, 78%).
• 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 25 January 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. 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 practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 95%, which was above the CCG average of 89% and 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 and health visitors. 

Updated 25 January 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 was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 25 January 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 and those recently retired 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. 

Updated 25 January 2017

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

• 77% of patients diagnosed with dementia who had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is lower than the CCG average of 86% and the national average of 84%.
• Performance for mental health related indicators was similar to the CCG and the national average. For example, the percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in the record in the preceding 12 months was 91% (CCG average, 90% and national average, 88%).
• 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.
• 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 those living with dementia.
• The practice referred patients to a D dementia C café in the local village.

Updated 25 January 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 homeless people, 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.  For example, the practice had a referral system in place to a local food bank.
• 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.