Archived: Rotherham Road Medical Centre PMS Also known as Rotherham Road Medical Centre

Updated 25 February 2016

Rotherham Road Medical Centre is situated within a purpose built surgery in the centre of Barnsley. The building has a car park and disabled access.

The practice provides Primary Medical Services (PMS) for 4434 patients in the NHS Barnsley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area.

There are three GP partners, two male and one female. They are supported by two female practice nurses, a practice manager and a team of administration and reception staff.

The practice opening hours and surgeries are 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. The practice provides extended hours from 6.30pm to 7.30pm on a Tuesday and Wednesday. Longer appointments are available for those who need them and home visits and telephone consultations are available as required.

Out of hours services are accessed by calling the practice telephone number or NHS 111.

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

Updated 25 February 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Rotherham Road Medical Centre on 14 December 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• 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.
• 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 and easy to understand.
• 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 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 improvements are:

• Complete the business continuity plan.

• Have a plan in place to calibrate all medical equipment annually.

• Document regular checks on the emergency equipment such as the defibrillator and the oxygen.

• Secure cords on blinds in patient areas.

• Provide access to clinical appraisal for practice nurses.

• DBS checks (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable) should be done prior to employment where necessary.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 25 February 2016

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

• Nursing staff had lead roles in long term condition management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was 71% which was below the CCG average of 84% and national average of 89%, the practice was aware of this and had looked at ways to improve these figures. For example, the nurses saw patients opportunistically for long term condition reviews if they had attended for other reasons. There were appointments available for extended hours nurse clinics to enable better access for working patients with long term conditions.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medicines needs were being met. Patients diagnosed with multiple long term conditions were treated holistically where possible and reviewed in one appointment.

• For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 25 February 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 compared to CCG averages.

• 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 2014/15 cervical screening programme was 84%, which was comparable to the CCG and national average of 82%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies with room for pushchairs, baby changing facilities and a private room available for breast feeding on request.

Updated 25 February 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.

• It was responsive to the needs of older people and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

All patients over the age of 75 years had an annual review which could be combined with a long term condition review.

Updated 25 February 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 a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

• Following a request by the patient participation group, nurse clinics were held on two evenings a week to enable better access for working patients needing nurse appointments.

Updated 25 February 2016

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

• Performance for mental health related indicators was 65% which was significantly lower than the CCG average of 82%, and national average of 92%. The practice was aware of these figures and had put measures in place to improve the care for this group of patients. For example, a GP had taken a lead role for ensuring patients with mental health problems were assessed annually.
• The practice had 15 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of dementia, a prevalence rate of 0.4%, which was comparable to the CCG and national average and were actively screening all patients who were at risk.
• The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those living with dementia.
• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
• Staff had a good understanding of how to support people with mental health needs and those living with dementia.

Updated 25 February 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 circumstances that could make them vulnerable including homeless people, travellers and those with a learning disability.

• A GP had lead roles to manage and coordinate the reviews and care for people with learning disabilities.

• It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of people whose circumstances could make them vulnerable.

• It had told patients whose circumstances could make them vulnerable about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in 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.