Archived: Meadow Dale Group Practice

Updated 6 August 2015

Meadowdale Group Practice is situated within a purpose built surgery in Halifax.

The practice provides Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) for 2099 patients across three sites in the NHS Calderdale Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area. The two other sites within the group are based in Elland and Sowerby Bridge. These two sites are registered separately with the CQC.

There is one male GP, an advanced nurse practitioner, one practice nurse and a health care assistant who all work across the sites. There is a dedicated administration team for each site but they cover leave for the other sites as necessary. The practice manager is responsible for all the sites in the group.

The surgery is open from 8 am to 8 pm on week days and 8 am to 1 pm on Saturdays. The clinicians work across the three sites providing varied surgeries depending on patient need. Appointments are pre-bookable and a number of appointments are available to book on the day. Patients with palliative care needs can attend any clinical session without needing to make an appointment. Longer appointments are available for those who need them and home visits and telephone consultations are available as required.

Out of hours services are provided by NHS 111or 999 services. A NHS walk-in centre is also available locally.

The practice is registered to provide the following regulated activities; maternity and midwifery services; diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Updated 6 August 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Meadow Dale Group Practice on 14 April 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also rated as good for providing services for all population groups.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
• 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 was available and easy to understand.
• Patients said they found the appointment system very accessible.
• 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 management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

There were areas of outstanding practice.

• We found there were outstanding processes in place to manage incidents. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses and they had received training in this area. Detailed policies and procedures were in place to support practice. Incidents were recorded electronically and monitored for patterns and trends at local, regional and national level. Lessons were learned and communicated widely to support improvement.
• We found there were outstanding processes in place for the management of medicines. Detailed procedures were in place for all aspects relating management of medicines and clinical staff had received medicines management training. Detailed audit processes were in place to monitor medicines and compliance with policies and procedures. There were systems in place which ensured GPs had time to review repeat prescriptions.
• We found there were outstanding governance systems in place. The practice had a clear vision and strategy and this was embedded in aspects of practice. Staff were clear about the vision and their responsibilities in relation to this. There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management both at the practice and regionally. The practice had a number of detailed policies and procedures to govern activity and held regular governance meetings. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 6 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. The GP and nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified and monitored. Home visits were available when needed. All these 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 practice worked with relevant health and care professionals to monitor patient outcomes and to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care. Patients with palliative care needs could attend any clinical session without needing to make an appointment. The practice held a number of in-house clinics to support this group of patients such as, clinics for asthma, diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and coronary heart disease.

Updated 6 August 2015

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 who were at risk, Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. The practice worked closely with other agencies such as the health visitors and held a number of in-house health care clinics.

Updated 6 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. All patients over 75 years of age had a named GP. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits. Monthly multi-disciplinary meetings were held to review the care needs of older people. The practice worked closely with other health and social care organisations and ran a number of in-house clinics.

Updated 6 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The services offered ensured appointments were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care. Pre-bookable, telephone consultations, Saturday and late evening appointments were all available to this group of patients.

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. A number of clinics were also available in-house such as smoking cessation.

Updated 6 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). People experiencing poor mental health received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and counselling services.

Updated 6 August 2015

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. It offered annual reviews for people with a learning disability.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It signposted vulnerable patients to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff had access to tools such as a translation services to assist communication with patients where English was not their first language. 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.