Townsend Medical Centre Also known as Dr S. Singh & Dr J Mendiguren

Updated 9 June 2016

Townsend Medical Centre is based in a deprived area of Liverpool. There were 3800 patients on the practice register at the time of our inspection.

The practice is managed by three GP partners (two female, one male). There is one regular locum GP. There is a part time practice nurse and a nurse prescriber. Members of clinical staff are supported by a practice manager, reception and administration staff.

The practice is open 8am to 6.30pm every weekday. The practice offers extended hours on Monday evenings until 8pm.

Patients requiring a GP outside of normal working hours are advised to contact the GP out of hours service, provided by Urgent Care 24 by calling 111.

The practice has a General Medical Services (GMS) contract and has enhanced services contracts which include childhood vaccinations.

Updated 9 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Townsend 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:

• The practice is situated in a purpose built health centre that also housed three other GP practices and a range of community services. The practice name was very similar to that of the building. This caused confusion for patients as they would telephone the practice when they required other services available within the building. In addition, the practice’s reception desk was the first desk in the building that patients accessed. This resulted in reception staff frequently directing patients to other services in the building or dealing with queries, which increased their workload and meant the practice’s own patients were kept waiting at the desk. The practice and the patient participation group (PPG) were in discussions about this with the local commissioning group (CCG) and the owners of the building.

• The practice was clean and had good facilities including disabled access and translation services.

• There were systems in place to mitigate safety risks including analysing significant events and safeguarding.

• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation.

• 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. The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service; including having a PPG and acted, where possible, on feedback.

• Many of the staff had worked at the practice for a long time and knew the patients well. Staff worked well together as a team and all felt supported to carry out their roles.

However, there were areas where the provider should make improvements.

The provider should:

• Make sure all staff are aware of where the oxygen in the building is located or purchase their own.

• Update patient information for complaints to include who the patient should contact if they are unhappy with how the practice dealt with their complaint.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 9 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing services for people with long term conditions.  The practice had registers in place for several long term conditions including diabetes and asthma. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a structured annual or six month review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 9 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing services for families, children and young people. The practice regularly liaised with health visitors to review vulnerable children and new mothers. 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.

Updated 9 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing services for older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and offered home visits and care home visits. The practice participated in meetings with other healthcare professionals to discuss any concerns. There was a named GP for the over 75s. 

Updated 9 June 2016

The practice is as rated good for providing services for working age people. The needs of this population group had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible. There were online systems available to allow patients to make appointments.

Updated 9 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing services for people experiencing poor mental health. Patients experiencing poor mental health received an invitation for an annual physical health check. Those that did not attend had alerts placed on their records so they could be reviewed opportunistically. 

Updated 9 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for providing services for people whose circumstances make them vulnerable. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks and longer appointments were available for people with a learning disability.