Archived: Pennfields Health Centre Also known as IntraHealth Limited

Updated 25 May 2016

Pennfields Health Centre is one of two GP practices in Wolverhampton owned by Intrahealth, a corporate provider of NHS primary care services. Pennfields Health Centre is located in one of the most deprived areas of Wolverhampton. The practice provides medical services to approximately 3,486 patients. The practice has a higher proportion of patients between the ages of 18 to 65 years compared with the practice average across England. The practice population is culturally diverse with approximately 75% of patients from Asian, African or East European backgrounds.

The practice team consists of six GPs (four male and two female), who work across the two of the Intrahealth practices based in Wolverhampton. The practice also use regular GP locums to support the clinicians and meet the needs of patients at the practice. The clinical practice team includes an advanced clinical practitioner, three nurse practitioners, two practice nurses and a phlebotomist (a person that takes blood from patients for testing). Practice staff also include a practice manager, office supervisor and four administration/ receptionists support staff. In total there are 19 staff employed either full or part time hours to meet the needs of patients.

The practice is open between 8am to 8pm on a Monday, 8am to 6.30pm Tuesday to Friday. Extended surgery hours are from 6.30pm to 8pm on Mondays and 8am to 12pm on Saturdays. The practice does not provide an out-of-hours service to its patients but has alternative arrangements for patients to be seen when the practice is closed. Patients are directed to the out of hours service Primecare, the NHS 111 service and the local Walk-in Centres.

The practice has a contract to provide Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) for patients. This allows the practice to have a contract with NHS and other non-NHS health care providers to deliver enhanced and primary medical services to meet the needs of the local community. They provide Directed Enhanced Services, such as the childhood vaccination and immunisation scheme and minor surgery. The practice provides a number of clinics for example long-term condition management including asthma and diabetes.

Updated 25 May 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Pennfields Health Centre on 11 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• The practice had implemented changes to meet the needs of its East European population and had established links with local community services to educate patients on how to access health care services. Staff also received cultural awareness training.
• The practice had a programme of continuous clinical and internal audit in order to monitor quality and make improvements. All staff were encouraged to carry out individual audits.
• Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand, however the practice had not recorded and formally investigated all complaints received to demonstrate that lessons were learnt and improvements made where appropriate.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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 the 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:

• Review the systems in place to record, investigate and demonstrate the outcome of written and verbal complaints received at the practice or through other sources.
• Improve the identification of registered patients who are carers and develop services to meet the needs of carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 25 May 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. Performance for diabetes assessment and care was much lower than the national average (74% compared to the national average of 89%). The practice had taken action to identify the causes and it was involved in a local CCG initiative to improve the care and treatment of patients with diabetes. 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. Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

Updated 25 May 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 mostly below the standard for childhood immunisations. The practice had identified this and taken action to address the possible cause. 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. Protected appointments were allocated for children and appointments were available outside of school hours. The premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors. The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 83%, which was similar to the national average of 82%.

Updated 25 May 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 offered home visits and urgent appointments for those older patients with enhanced needs. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice had a proactive working relationship with three nursing/independent care homes. There was effective communication between the practice and care home staff, regular ward rounds were carried out and visits to the homes were made when requested.

Updated 25 May 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 were offered one evening per week and on a Saturday morning. The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs for this age group.

Updated 25 May 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The data showed that 90% of patients on the practice register who experienced poor mental health had a comprehensive agreed care plan in the preceding 12 months. This was similar to the national average of 88%. The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people who experienced poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia. The percentage of patients diagnosed with dementia whose care had been reviewed in a face to face review in the preceding 12 months was 92%, which was higher than the national average of 84%. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 25 May 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 with a learning disability and carried out annual health checks for these patients. An easy read (pictorial) letter was sent to patients with a learning disability inviting them to attend the practice for their annual health check.

Staff had been trained 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. The practice maintained a list of patients who experienced vulnerable circumstances and provided a service that met the needs of these patients. For example, patients that suffered domestic abuse, substance misuse and homelessness. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding confidentiality, information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies. Staff had been trained to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children.