Archived: Branksomewood Health Centre Also known as Branksomewood Healthcare Centre

Updated 19 May 2017

Branksomewood Health Centre is situated on the edge of a large commuter town. The health centre is purpose built with a large car park and disable spaces to the front and staff parking to the rear. Access to the practice is through double doors which are not automatic. Wheelchair users can ring a bell and reception staff are available to assist them entering the building. There is a separate chemist that shares the building and provides an automatic door access during their opening hours. The practice has seven clinical rooms and four treatment rooms all on the ground floor with wide corridors. The reception has and area for patients to wait behind to support private conversations at the front desk and there is an electronic check-in point available.

There are three GP partners (two male and one female) and five part time salaried doctors, one male and four female (equivalent to six full time doctors). The practice has four practice nurses, a nurse practitioner and two health care assistants. The practice has a phlebotomist that they share with another practice. The practice has approximately 12700 patients registered.

The practice is open between 8.00am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday; appointments are available between 8.50am and 5.30pm. Extended surgery hours are offered on Mondays until 8pm and every fourth Saturday there is a bookable clinic from 8.30am until 11.30am. When the practice is closed patients are advised to contact the on call doctors’ service via NHS 111.

The practice is situated in one of the most affluent areas of England with low deprivation rates. It has a higher than average life expectancy for both males and females. It has an above average population of people aged 35-54.

The practice operates from one location which is situated at:

Branksomewood Road

Fleet

Hampshire

GU51 4JX

Updated 19 May 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Branksomewood Health Centre on 17 February 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. The practice was rated as requires improvement for the safe domain. The full comprehensive report on the February 2016 inspection can found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Branksomewood Health Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 11 April 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their action plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 17 February 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

At our previous inspection on 17 February 2016, we rated the practice requires improvement for providing safe services as the practice could not fully demonstrate that staff were fit for employment at the practice. In addition the practice was also unable to confirm that all staff had now completed or had updated training on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

Our key findings from the follow up inspection on 11 April 2017 were as follows:

• We found that all staff had received safeguarding adult and children training to a level suitable for their role and had engaged in further update training.

• The practice now collected employee health declaration forms for all staff when they started employment.

• Recommendations from risk assessments such as for fire and Legionella were completed and reassessed within given timescales.

• The practice had adequate chaperone arrangements.

• Significant events had been recorded more thoroughly with appropriate action points, and relevant lessons to be learned, which had been cascaded down to all relevant staff members.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 8 June 2016

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

• Nursing staff were being trained to lead chronic disease management reviews. Patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. The practice had a nominated GP partner lead for patients with long term conditions.

• For example, the percentage of patients on the diabetes register with a record of a foot examination and risk classification was 91% which was comparable with the national average of 88%.

• 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.

Updated 8 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 accident and emergency attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

• The percentage of patients with asthma on the practice register who had had a review in the preceding 12 months was 73% which was comparable with the national average of 75%.

• 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.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 77% which was comparable to the CCG average of 77% and the national average of 74%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

• Appointments were released throughout the day with good availability to see unwell children later in the day.

Updated 8 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 patients in its population.

• Routine 20 minutes appointments were available for this population group.

• The practice provided care and treatment to local care homes and six local community beds in a local hospital.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients. Longer appointments and home visits were available for older patients when needed, and this was acknowledged positively in feedback from patients.

• The leadership of the practice had started to engage with this patient group to look at further options to improve services for them.

Updated 8 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.

• The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 8 June 2016

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

• A total of 79% of patients diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is below the national average of 84%.

• A total of 90% of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had a comprehensive agreed care plan recorded compared with 88% nationally.

• 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 8 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 homeless patients, travellers and those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Not all staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children and training had not been provided to all staff to ensure that patients were safeguarded from harm.

• The practice were aware of patients who were hearing or visually impaired and had made arrangements to ensure they were provided with appropriate information and support.