Archived: Dr Benson & Dr Ring

Updated 22 October 2015

Dr Ring and Dr Benson’s practice is also known as Marsden Health Centre and is located in a large village about eight miles from Huddersfield. The practice is based in a purpose build health centre. They have 4500 registered patients whose ethnicity is predominantly white English. They have a higher than national average population of patients aged 40 to 75 year olds.

The practice provides General Medical Services (GMS) under a contract with NHS England. They also offer a range of enhanced services such as extended hours, minor surgery and childhood immunisations.

Marsden Health Centre has two GP partners (one female, one male) and a male salaried GP. There is a female nurse practitioner, two female practice nurses and a health care assistant. These are supported by a practice manager, an office co-ordinator, a medical secretary and an experienced team of reception/administration staff.

The practice is open between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday with extended hours on Monday evenings from 6.30 to 8.15pm. When the practice is closed, out-of-hours services are provided by Local Care Direct.

At the time of our inspection Marsden Health Centre were in the process of merging with another local practice, Colne Valley Family Doctors.

Updated 22 October 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Benson and Dr Ring’s practice on 5 August 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles.
• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety, for example infection prevention and control procedures and health and safety assessments.
• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents, near misses and any identified safeguarding issues.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• The practice sought patient views how improvements could be made to the service, through the use of patient surveys and the patient representation group (PRG).
• Urgent appointments were available for patients the same day as requested, although not necessarily with a GP of their choice.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in care and decisions about their treatment.

We saw an area of outstanding practice:

• The practice had participated in a local medicines management initiative and could evidence significant improvements in prescribing and patient understanding. As a result of the achievements the polyparmacy scheme had been shortlisted for an award by a national health journal.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated 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. All patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named clinician worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care. The practice nurses had extended roles to administer specific injections for named patients who had prostate cancer. They also undertook wound care management, for example leg ulcers dressings.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated 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 accident and emergency (A&E) attendances. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. The practice told us all young children were prioritised and the under-fives were seen on the same day as requested. Patients we spoke with during our inspection told us children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals. The practice provided sexual health support and contraception, maternity services and childhood immunisations. Data showed immunisation uptake rates were comparable for the locality.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of older people in its population. Longer appointments, home visits and rapid access were available for those patients with enhanced needs. The practice worked closely with other health and social care professionals, such as the district nursing team and community matron, to ensure housebound patients received the care they needed.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of working age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of this population group had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible. For example, the practice had extended hours on Monday evenings from 6.30pm to 8.15pm. The practice also offered online services, telephone triage/advice and a full range of health promotion and screening programmes that reflected the needs of this age group.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). All patients had a named GP. Annual health checks were offered for these patients and data showed 92% had received one in the last twelve months. The practice actively screened patients for dementia and maintained a register of those diagnosed. It carried out advance care planning for these patients.

The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of people in this population group, for example the local mental health team. It provided readily available on how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations, such as MIND and the Alzheimer’s Society. Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances, including those who had a learning disability. Longer appointments were available for patients as needed. Annual health checks were offered for those who had a learning disability and data showed 100% of eligible patients had received one in the last twelve months.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in children, young people and adults whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. They 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 worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of this population group. It provided information on how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.