King Edward Road Surgery

Updated 22 October 2015

King Edward Road surgery provides general medical services to a population of approximately 11,200 patients in Northampton town centre and surrounding areas under a general medical services (GMS) contract. The practice population had a higher than average number of patients aged 0 to 5 years and 25 to 50 years and national data indicates that the area does not have high levels of deprivation.

The practice has six GP partners, three full time male and three part time female. They employ four nurses, three of whom are nurse prescribers, and a health care assistant. There is a practice manager and assistant practice manager who are supported by a team of administration and reception staff. It is a training practice and which trains and supports doctors who are qualified and who are training to be GPs as well as newly qualified doctors gaining experience in general practice and medical students.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Extended hours appointments are available on Thursdays from 6.30pm until 8.30pm and Saturday mornings from 7.45am until 11am for pre-booked appointments only. When the surgery is closed services are provided by Integrated Care 24 Limited and patients can contact the service via NHS 111.

Updated 22 October 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at King Edward Road Surgery on 28 August 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
• The practice had developed and implemented good systems using information technology which enabled sharing of information regarding planning and patient 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 was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
• The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet people’s needs.
• The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the Patient Participation Group (PPG).
• The practice facilities were well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand
• The practice had a clear vision with an emphasis on quality and safety. An improvement plan was in place, which we saw was reviewed and discussed with all staff at protected learning sessions. High standards were promoted and owned by all practice staff with evidence of team working across all roles.

However there was an area of practice where the provider should make improvements:

• Consider formally revisiting the outcomes following actions implemented after significant events to determine the effectiveness of the measures put in place.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. The practice had systems in place to highlight the specific needs of this group of patient and ensure that information was recorded and shared with the correct staff providing care. In addition nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. 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 medication needs were being met. 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 22 October 2015

The practice was 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 A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations. 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. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice was 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 and flexible. 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 22 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). They had robust systems of identifying this group of patients and ways of ensuring they were followed up appropriately if they did not attend for treatment. There were also systems in place to monitor medications and tests required prior to prescribing. They provided specific care to homes with vulnerable patients and ensured that the appropriate tests and procedures took place in the best interest of patients. They were proactive in seeking out patients suffering with dementia in order to ensure they received the correct care and treatment. Annual physical health checks were carried out and the practice accessed support from appropriate mental health teams in a timely way and ensured good communication with them and patients. They worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It 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. It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency (A&E) where they may have been experiencing poor mental health. Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs and dementia and there was a GP with additional training in psychiatry.

Updated 22 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. They had good systems in place to identify, review and follow up vulnerable patients if they do not attend and regular communication with social services and other members of the primary health care team. They also had put measures in place to ensure that people at the end of their life had access to the correct medication without delay. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability. They had access to translation facilities and also had doctors who spoke Urdu and Punjabi.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. 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.