Drs Shamsee, Ward & Wilding Slaithwaite Health Centre

Updated 30 March 2017

Drs Shamsee, Ward & Wilding (Slaithwaite Health Centre) New Street, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield, HD7 5AB, provides services for 4,876 patients. The surgery is situated within the Greater Huddersfield Clinical Commissioning Group and provides primary medical services under the terms of a personal medical services (PMS) contract.

Services are provided within a purpose built and accessible building which is leased from NHS Property Services. The practice, located in Slaithwaite serves the village and the surrounding rural area. The patient group experiences lower levels of deprivation and the population is mainly White British.

Slaithwaite Health Centre is registered as a partnership between Dr Muhammad Yusuf Shamsee, Dr James Ward and Dr Paul Wilding. Dr Shamsee has a management role at the location as he is in full time clinical practice at the nearby Oatlands Health Centre, of which both Dr Shamsee and Dr Ward are also partners.

Dr Ward and Dr Wilding together work a whole time equivalent (W.T.E) of 1.67. The partners are supported by three salaried GPs (two female and one male) who are all part time and collectively work the equivalent of 1.33 W.T.E. The practice also has three female practice nurses who offer a combined 1.49 W.T.E.

The practice manager is primarily based at Oaklands Health Centre, but attends Slaithwaite regularly. She is supported by an Operational Manager based at Slaithwaite, who works 0.85 W.T.E. and a number of part time reception and administrative staff.

The practice is open Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 8am to 6.30pm, There were extended hours offered on Thursday until 8.30pm for pre-booked appointments. Out of hours treatment is provided by Local Care Direct.

Updated 30 March 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Shamsee, Ward and Wilding at

Slaithwaite Health Centre on 3 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good, although the practice is rated as outstanding for providing safe services.

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. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.

• Feedback from patients about their care was consistently highly positive and every aspect of the national GP patient survey was higher than local and national averages.

• The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet patients’ needs. For example in providing enhanced training to nurse to enable them to undertake complex dressings in-house.

• 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. For example by providing more accessible chairs for people with mobility issues and providing a fresh water supply for patients’ use.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with staff.
• The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

• The practice used every opportunity to learn from internal and external incidents, to support improvement. Learning was based on a thorough analysis and investigation. Significant events were coded to triage the most appropriate response and learning was shared across this location, as well as its partner site; Oaklands Health Centre and the Clinical Commissioning Group. The practice produced a comprehensive annual report which it publicised, sharing learning and actions across the whole team and the patient group. Where applicable the practice shared learning across the wider health network.

• The provider maintained the highest standards in relation to Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and published an annual statement of compliance within the practice, notifying the patient population of any infection control incidents that had occurred.

• We saw that learning from complaints was embedded into the practice ethos with all team members engaged in reviewing and learning from complaints on a monthly basis. Learning was shared between both Oaklands and Slaithwaite locations in order to maximise opportunities for reflection. Complaints were anonymised and published at the location to both encourage patients to offer their feedback, feel encouraged to make a complaint and see evidence of the provider’s engagement.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 30 March 2017

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.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was in line with or higher than the national average. For example 69% of diabetic patients on the register had achieved a blood sugar result of 59 mmol or less in the preceding 12 months. This demonstrated that their diabetes was being well controlled for these patients. This was 2% lower than the local average and 1% lower than the national average. In addition, 95% of diabetic patients had received a foot examination to check for nerve or skin damage associated with their condition. This was 10% higher than the local average and 7% higher than the national average.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 30 March 2017

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.

• 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.

• Uptake for the cervical screening programme was 84%, which was in line with the CCG average of 85% and higher than the national average of 81%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

• The provider also worked with a local refuge in supporting patients who had experienced domestic abuse.

Updated 30 March 2017

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.

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

• A weekly visit was undertaken to a local care provider to provide support to patients.

• Nursing staff had enhanced skills in managing complex dressings in-house.

Updated 30 March 2017

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 reflects the needs for this age group.

• Rates of screening for bowel and breast cancer were similar or higher than the local and national averages.

Updated 30 March 2017

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 overall was higher than the national average. For example 95% of patients with a serious mental illness had a comprehensive care plan in place. This was 4% higher than the local average and 7% higher than the national average.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

• The practice 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.

• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 30 March 2017

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 homeless people and those with a learning disability.

• The provider had links with services offering support to people experiencing drug and addiction problems.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice informed 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.