Heady Hill Surgery

Updated 12 April 2018

Heady Hill Surgery, 114 Bury New Road, Heywood, Lancashire, OL10 4RG provides general medical services under a personal medical services contract to patients within the Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale Clinical Commissioning Group area.

The practice website is www.headyhillsurgery.nhs uk.

The practice is responsible for providing treatment to 3292 registered patients and offers services that include meningitis provision, the childhood vaccination and immunisation scheme, extended hours access, facilitating timely diagnosis and support for people with dementia, influenza and pneumococcal immunisations, minor surgery, patient participation, rotavirus and shingles immunisation and unplanned admissions.

Heady Hill Surgery is a training practice where one of the doctors is a trainer to doctors who are undergoing their post graduate training.

Since the last inspection the practice has increased its GP partners from two to three, recruited a new nurse, promoted a member of staff to practice manager and were training another member of staff to be a phlebotomist.

Information taken from Public Health England placed the area in which the practice is located as two on the deprivation scale of one to ten. (The lower the number the higher the deprivation). In general, people living in more deprived areas tend to have greater need for health services. The age profile of the practice population is broadly in line with the CCG averages.

l

Updated 12 April 2018

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection February 2015 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced inspection at Heady Hill Surgery on 6 March 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• The practice, with other practices in the Clinical Commissioning Group and the wider NHS, had receptionists who were trained as care navigators who signposted patients to the right person at the right time across a variety of health services.
• The practice was a training practice for doctors in their last year of postgraduate training.
• The percentage of patients who responded to the National GP Patient Survey saying that they had confidence and trust in the last GP and the last nurse that they saw was 100% for both.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 16 April 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. 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. The practice held regular multidisciplinary and palliative care meetings. They had computer screen pop-ups to alert staff to any patients with infectious diseases and policies with instruction for staff on how to control the spread of any infection.

Updated 16 April 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 and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. The practice were pro-active in safeguarding of children. All children under the age of five years were offered a full health check to identify any underlying potential illness or safeguarding issue. The practice nurse provided an example where early intervention had provided a positive impact for the patient.

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 16 April 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. The practice were pro-actively joint working to support frail elderly patients and patients with multiple morbidities and aimed to keep them out of hospital. They did this by better assessment and speedy introduction of support services such as the re-enablement team. They worked closely with carers and care homes to establish a co-ordinated approach. We observed this on the day when the practice responded and supported an elderly carer who was not a patient of the practice, but whose husband was.

Updated 16 April 2015

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 reflected the needs for this age group. When the practice was closed patients had access to the Heywood Health Hub (HHH) which was an initiative set up by the lead GP at Heady Hill.

Updated 16 April 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). Health checks for people experiencing mental health issues were offered and the practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out dementia checks and advanced care planning for patients with dementia. The practice had a screen message system in place for flagging alerts to all clinicians reviewing the patients and was one of two small practices in Heywood who cared for patients with addictions.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations including MIND and SANE. 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.

Updated 16 April 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice held registers of patients living in vulnerable circumstances and those with a learning disability. It undertook checks on patients with learning disabilities and screen messages were available to alert staff of any patients at risk of self harm. The practice had several policies in relation to vulnerable patients which covered areas from mental capacity to guide dogs. When required, vulnerable patients and patients with a military background were highlighted as priority patients.

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.