The Reddish Family Practice Also known as The Family Surgery

Updated 14 December 2016

Drs Dickie, Pontefract & Saksena Joye has a main practice based in North Reddish and a branch sites in South Reddish, near Stockport. There were 12,500 patients on the practice register at the time of our inspection.

The practice is a training practice managed by six GP partners (four male, two female). There is one female salaried GP. There are three practice nurses and three healthcare assistants. Members of clinical staff are supported by a practice manager, a business manager, and reception and administration staff.

The practice is open 8am to 6.30pm every weekday. Patients requiring a GP outside of normal working hours are advised to contact the GP out of hours service by calling 111.

The practice has a Personal Medical Services (GMS) contract and has enhanced services contracts which include childhood vaccinations. The practice is part of NHS Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group.

Updated 14 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Dickie, Pontefract & Saksena Joye (also known as The Reddish Family Practice) at 306 Gorton Road, Stockport, SK5 6RN and at their branch surgery located at South Reddish Medical Centre, Stockport, SK5 7QU on 11 November 2016. This report covers our findings from both premises. The two practices were previously separate organisations. Therefore data in this report refers to the individual practices.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• The main practice is situated in purpose built premises with a ramp for disabled access, translation services and hearing loops. However, disabled patients would require assistance with the second door to the main site as there was no means of calling for assistance other than relying on the possibility of receptionists being able to see them. The branch surgery was a converted house and had no lowered kerb for disabled access.
• The practice had undergone an organisational change with the merger of the two practices and had taken on a further 1,800 patients from other nearby practices.
• The practice had recently changed its computer systems. The practice had identified a data glitch in the transfer of data from the old system to the new one causing incorrect dates of medication reviews on the new system. The practice had notified the IT suppliers as soon as this issue had been identified; however there had been no resolution of this issue on the date of our inspection. The practice had discussed the problem at a practice meeting and put contingency plans in place to make sure GPs checked the records before signing the prescription. Although we appreciated that the transfer of data was not fully within the practice’s control, we were concerned that the contingency plans were not routinely followed. We also found that practice protocols in place for the management of uncollected prescriptions were not being adhered to. Issues we identified were discussed in practice meetings immediately after our inspection and appropriate steps were taken to mitigate any risks.
• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events. Learning from incidents took place to prevent reoccurrence.
• Appropriate health and safety risk assessments for the premises were carried out, however, actions necessary for the most serious risks identified within the electrical installation assessment (January 2016) for the main site premises had not been completed. This was addressed immediately after our inspection.
• The practice was aware of and had systems in place to ensure compliance with the requirements of the duty of candour. (The duty of candour is a set of specific legal requirements that providers of services must follow when things go wrong with care and treatment). The practice published its duty of candour policy on the practice website and it was available in the waiting room.
• 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 virtual patient participation group (PPG) and carrying out a variety of patient surveys and acted, where possible, on feedback. For example, satisfaction with the telephone system to make appointments had previously been low and the practice was working on installing a new system.
• Staff worked well together as a team and all felt supported to carry out their roles.

There were elements of outstanding practice:

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety. For example, the practice published its infection control audit results on the practice website.
• All staff members were invited to comment on colleagues’ performance and this feedback was used at individual appraisals.
• Staff meetings opened with discussion about positive thoughts about the practice and staff were encouraged to identify improvements and supported in innovation. For example, there were monthly nursing team meetings and the development of protocols for the nursing areas. These included-contact telephone numbers for each vaccine manufacturer displayed on the fridge for ease of contact; use of stickers displaying the words ’I am clean’ on medical equipment so staff reassured ready for use; stickers on waste containers reminding clinicians to ‘stop and think’ that they were using the correct disposal procedure before they discarded waste (this system had been adopted by the local infection control team).
• The practice had a comprehensive induction welcome pack for staff which included photographs of staff members, building plans as well as details of operational delivery and safety issues.
• The practice had produced a patient information leaflet about keeping young children safe from abuse.

The provider also should:-

• Add additional information to their complaints procedure and patient information leaflet about who patients can complain to if they do not wish to complain to the practice.
• Consider fire proof storage for paper medical records at the branch site.
• Include details of health and safety representatives on the Health and Safety poster for staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 14 December 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. 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 14 December 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 14 December 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. The practice participated in meetings with other healthcare professionals to discuss any concerns. There was a named GP for the over 75s.    

Updated 14 December 2016

The practice is 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 14 December 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 14 December 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. The practice participated in charity events for example, they had a held a Macmillan coffee morning.