Archived: Dr A Burada & Partners Also known as Wootton Medical Centre

Updated 15 June 2016

Wootton Medical Centre is a GP practice which provides primary medical services under a Personal Medical Services (PMS) contract to a population of approximately 6,670 patients living in Wootton and the surrounding areas of Wootton Fields, Hardingstone and Quinton in Northamptonshire. A PMS contract is a locally agreed contract used for providing medical services.

The practice operates from a two storey premises. All consultations take place on the ground floor and the first floor accommodates district nurses and health visitors attached to the practice. The practice population has a higher than average number of patients aged 40 to 55 years and five to 20 years. National data indicates that the area is not one that experiences high levels of deprivation. The practice population is made up of predominantly white British patients.

There are four GP partners, three of whom are female and one male. The practice employ one practice nurse and a phlebotomist who is also trained in some health care assistant duties and a practice manager who are supported by a team of administrative and reception staff. They are currently recruiting for an additional practice nurse and in the interim are employing the services of a locum nurse for some sessions each week.

The practice is open daily Monday to Friday between 8.00am and 6.30pm and on Wednesdays extended hours appointments are offered until 8.10pm. When the surgery is closed services are provided by an out of hours provider who can be contacted via NHS 111.

Updated 15 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wootton Medical Centre on 5 May 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 and learning from 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 consistently reported experiencing good standards of care and treatment and said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. They told us 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 named GP and there was continuity of care. This was reflected in the national patient survey and from reports from patients. Urgent appointments were available on the same day.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs and equipment was appropriately maintained.
• 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• The practice should consider carrying out audits against high risk medicines which used shared care protocols.

• The practice should install a second thermometer for the vaccine fridges.

• Develop documentation to formalise the induction of staff in line with the practice policy.

• Complete outstanding training as planned.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 15 June 2016

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

• The GPs lead on chronic disease management and were supported by the practice nurse and had a robust call and recall system in place to manage this.
• Patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
• Data demonstrated that the practice had achieved good outcomes for patients in all areas chronic disease such as diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
• 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 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 15 June 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 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 spoke to some young people who confirmed this.
• Cervical screening rates were above the local and national average.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours for both the GP and nurse and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 15 June 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 provided weekly ward rounds at a local care home as part of an enhanced service and addressed any health concerns from these patients as well as respond to any daily concerns.
• Regular health and medicine reviews were carried out for older people.

Updated 15 June 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.
• Extended hours appointments were available for those patients who could not attend during normal surgery opening times.
• The practice was proactive in offering online services including electronic prescribing as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs for this age group.

Updated 15 June 2016

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

• 98% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was above the national average of 84%. They visited a local care home weekly and reviewed medicines and care routinely to identify any deterioration or unmet needs.
• The practice was proactive in identifying patients at risk of dementia. and carried out screening for these patients.
• 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.
• 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 dementia.

Updated 15 June 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 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.
• A register for carers was held.