The Streatham Hill Group Practice

Updated 16 August 2016

The Streatham Hill Group Practice is based in the London Borough of Lambeth. The practice is run by two partners. The practice is based in a purpose built building which is based across several floors, all of which are accessible by a lift. The address of the practice is 6 Leigham Court Road, Streatham, London, SW16 2PG.

The practice has approximately 7,500 registered patients. The surgery is based in an area with a deprivation score of 4 out of 10 (10 being the least deprived). The practice age demographic is generally in line with national averages, although the number of patients over the age of 50 is slightly less than what would be expected nationally. The age group 20-35 is slightly above the national average.

The practice employs two further GPs. In total there are two male and two female GPs working to an equivalent of 3.0 whole time equivalent GPs. There are three practice nurses, one employed by the practice and two locums. There is a practice manager and a reception supervisor and eight other administrative staff.

The practice is contracted to provide Personal Medical Services (PMS) and is registered with the CQC for the following regulated activities: treatment of disease, disorder or injury, family planning, maternity and midwifery, surgical procedures and diagnostic and screening procedures at one location.

The practice is open Monday to Friday 8:00am to 6:30pm. There are extended hours from 7:30am to 8:00am on Mondays to Fridays, and 6:30pm to 7:30pm on Wednesdays.

The practice had not previously been inspected by the CQC.

Updated 16 August 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Streatham Hill Group Practice on 1 June 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 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 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 area where the provider should make improvement is:

• The practice should consider planning audits for the year ahead based on risk assessment.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 16 August 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.

• Indicators for long term conditions in the last completed QOF (2014/15) were lower than the national average. However, the provisional outcomes for 2015/16 were significantly improved so that long term conditions management was in line with national standards.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• The practice held virtual clinics where the care of patients with long term conditions and at high risk could be discussed with secondary care specialists in that area.

Updated 16 August 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.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 75%, which was comparable to the national average of 82%. The practice showed how the level had increased in the last year, at the end of the previous year it had been 72%.

• 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.

Updated 16 August 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 had delivered 75 holistic health assessments in the previous year for the benefit of older and more vulnerable patients.

Updated 16 August 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.

• 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.

• The practice offered a full range of vaccination services including a yellow fever clinic.

Updated 16 August 2016

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

• Indicators for management of mental health in the last completed QOF (2014/15) were lower than the national average. However, the provisional outcomes for 2015/16 were significantly improved so that management was in line with national standards.

• 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.

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

Updated 16 August 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, 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.

• 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 held a once weekly substance misuse clinic.