Archived: Summerfield Group Practice

Updated 22 January 2018

Summerfield Group Practice is located at Summerfield Primary Care Centre, 134 Heath Street Winson Green, Birmingham, B18 7AG. The practice is situated in a multipurpose modern built building, shared with other neighbouring practices (one of which is an urgent care centre) and community health teams providing NHS services to the local community. Further information about Summerfield Group Practice can be found by accessing the practice website at www.summerfieldgrouppractice.co.uk

Based on data available from Public Health England, the levels of deprivation in the area served by Summerfield Group Practice showed the practice is located in a more deprived area than national averages, ranked at one out of 10, with 10 being the least deprived. (Deprivation covers a broad range of issues and refers to unmet needs caused by a lack of resources of all kinds, not just financial). The practice serves a higher than average patient population aged under the age of 44. The number of patients aged 45 to 75 and over is below local and national averages. Based on data available from Public Health England, the Ethnicity estimate is 6% Mixed, 40% Asian, 22% Black and 3% other non-white ethnic groups.

The patient list is 6,800 of various ages registered and cared for at the practice. Services to patients are provided under an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract with the Sandwell and West Birmingham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). APMS is a contract between general practices and the CCG for delivering primary care services to local communities.

The surgery has expanded its contracted obligations to provide enhanced services to patients. An enhanced service is above the contractual requirement of the practice and is commissioned in order to improve the range of services available to patients.

On-site parking is available with designated parking for cyclists and patients who display a disabled blue badge. The surgery has automatic entrance doors and is accessible to patients using a wheelchair and push chairs.

Practice staffing comprises of two GP partners (both male). The partners rarely work clinical sessions at this practice; however, they provide managerial and clinical support to the practice manager and GPs at the practice. The clinical team also includes six locum GPs (4 male and 2 female), and a practice nurse. The non-clinical team consists of one practice manager and a team of administrators, secretaries and receptionists.

The practice is open between 8am and 8pm Mondays to Fridays.

GP consulting hours varied between the clinical staff but usually ranged from 9am to 12.30pm and 2pm to 7.30pm Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays; and 2pm to 6.30pm Tuesdays and Thursdays. The practice is part of the Primary Care Commissioning Framework (PCCF) and work jointly with other practices to improve access. This enabled access to appointments from four neighbouring practices between 8am and 8pm Mondays to Saturday.

The practice has opted out of providing cover to patients in their out of hours period. During this time, services are provided by Primecare who provides out of hours services.

Updated 22 January 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Summerfield group Practice on 7 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good; however, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing effective services. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Summerfield group Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 6 December 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to make improvements in relation to the effectiveness of quality improvement activities; the management, monitoring and improvement of outcomes for people; as well as improving patient satisfaction in areas such as access we identified in our previous inspection on 7 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice continues to be rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Since our previous inspection, the practice improved their use of quality assurance activities. For example, clinical audits demonstrated quality improvements.

• Data from the 2016/17 Quality and Outcomes Framework showed patient outcomes were comparable to local and national averages in most areas. However, outcomes for diabetes care were lower than local averages. Staff were aware of areas which required further improvements and unverified data provided by the practice demonstrated that they were working towards 2017/18 targets.

• Staff were aware of the complexity of the patient population group and worked with other health care professionals to improve engagement and increase the uptake of national screening programmes.

• Since our previous inspection, the practice implemented measures to ensure all equipment calibration checks were carried out and contracts for annual checks were in place.

• Data provided by the practice showed that the carers register had eight patients (0.1% of the practice list). Staff we spoke with during our inspection, explained low identification of carers was reflective of the young patient population. Since our previous inspection, the practice had reviewed their carers list and a designated member of staff was in charge of maintaining and updating carers’ records. There were posters in the reception area and the new patient registration form supported the identification of carers.

• During our previous inspection, staff explained the practice had increased their phone lines in order to improve access and patient satisfaction.

• Data from the national GP patient survey published July 2017 showed that 54% found it easy getting through to the practice by phone, compared to local averages of 60% and national average of 71%; demonstrating a 2% improvement since our previous inspection. The practice also carried out their own survey which identified 76% of patients found it easy to get through by phone and 23% found it hard.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider should make improvements. For example:

• Establish a system for sharing national guideline updates and learning from quality assurance activities.

• Continue working with community health teams and establishing effective processes to improve the uptake of national screening programmes and the uptake of childhood immunisations.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 21 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• All clinical staff were involved in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
• Patients with a long term conditions were invited to receive a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the practice worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.
• Performance for diabetes related indicators (2015/16) was 74% which was below the CCG average of 88% and national average of 90%.
• Patients with complex diabetes were able to access a local clinic run by a diabetes consultant.
• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
• The practice was participating in a local initiative to review patients on eight or medicines using a specific medication review template.
• For the convenience of patients some diagnostic and monitoring services were available from the practice which included electrocardiographs (ECGs) and phlebotomy (blood taking).

Updated 21 December 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 or those who did not attend for immunisations.
• Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.
• Uptake of cervical screening (2015/16) was at 80% was similar to the CCG average 79% and national average 81%. Exception reporting was 14% compared to the CCG average of 9% and national average of 7%.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. Baby changing and breast feeding facilities were available.
• The practice worked closely with the health visiting team in the management of vulnerable children.

Updated 21 December 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

• The practice had a very low proportion of patients in this population group. For example, only 0.7% of the practice population was over 75 years of age, compared to the CCG average of 6% and national average of 7.8%.
• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population. There were systems in place to follow up those patients who were high risk of admission.
• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and same day appointments for this population group.
• Patients over 75 years were offered the flu vaccination.
• The practice has a designated lead for end of life care and meets regularly with the community team to ensure the patients care needs were met.
• As part of the CCG led primary care commissioning framework the practice is implementing systems to identify and follow up those patients at risk of falls.

Updated 21 December 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 and flexible and offered continuity of care. The practice was open until 8pm, Monday to Friday for the convenience of those who worked or with other commitments during the day.
• The practice was proactive in offering online services for appointments and repeat prescriptions.
• A range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group was also offered. However, uptake of national screening programmes for bowel and breast cancer were significantly lower that other practices within the CCG and nationally.

Updated 21 December 2016

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

• Nationally reported data for 2015/16 showed 100% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was above the CCG and national average 84%. There was no exception reporting.
• National reported data for (2015/16) showed 92% of patients with poor mental health had comprehensive, agreed care plan documented, in the preceding 12 months which was comparable to the CCG average of 91% and national average 89%. Exception reporting was also comparable at 12% to the CCG average of 10% and national average of 12%.
• There was a designated lead GP for mental health.
• The community health team provided weekly clinics at the practice.

Updated 21 December 2016

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

• The practice was located in an inner city area with high levels of deprivation and a high proportion of patients whose first language was not English. To meet the needs of their population the practice had translators booked daily so that they could quickly respond to some of the language barriers. This also helped to maintain more timely appointments.
• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances such as those with a learning disability and those with caring responsibilities.
• There were 14 patients on the learning disability register however only two of these had received a health check in the last 12 months. Following the inspection the practice manager advised us that these were being followed up.
• Longer appointments could be booked for patients who needed them .
• Clinicians were able to access route2 wellbeing a local service which identified support available locally to patients.
• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.
• 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.