Archived: The Springhead Medical Centre Also known as Dr Curran & Partners

Updated 13 June 2016

The Springhead Medical Centre is situated in the west of Hull and provides services under a General Medical Services (GMS) contract with NHS England, Hull Area Team to the practice population of 16,176 covering patients of all ages.

The practice has seven full time GP partners (four male and three female) and a female GP registrar. There are three practice nurses, four health care assistants and one nurse practitioner. There is a practice manager, a patient services manager, an I.T. manager and a team of secretarial, administration and reception staff.

The practice is open between 6.50am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Early morning appointments are available from 7am to accommodate working people. Late appointments are available from 6.30pm to 7.30pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The practice, along with all other practices in the Hull CCG area has a contractual agreement for patients to access GP Out of Hours (OOHs) service through the NHS 111service from 6.30pm. This has been agreed with the NHS England area team. Information for patients requiring urgent medical attention out of hours is available in the waiting area, in the practice information leaflet and on the practice website.

The proportion of the practice population in the 20-35 years age group is lower than the England average. The practice population in the 40-55 age group is significantly higher than the England average. The practice scored seven on the deprivation measurement scale, which is the fourth lowest deprived. People living in more deprived areas tend to have greater need for health services. The overall practice deprivation score is higher than the England average, the practice is 16.8 and the England average is 21.8.

Updated 13 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Springhead Medical Centre on 8 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as outstanding.

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.

• The practice responded to and was engaged with notable local groups and stakeholders. For example medical advisors to the NHS 111 out of hours service, local care homes and leading on the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Primary Care Blueprint. This Blueprint sets out to seek new ways of working to improve health and care outcome for patients.

• 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. Discussions with staff and feedback from patients’ demonstrated staff were highly motivated and were inspired to offer care that was kind, caring and supportive and that met the needs of the population.

• 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.

• Leadership was reflective at the practice and involved the whole team in a cohesive way, which provided strong and effective decision making around patient care.

• Although already achieving positive outcomes in a number of areas, the practice team wished to improve their services and the experience of patients. They actively explored ways in which to do this.

• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour. This means providers must be open and transparent with service users about their care and treatment, including when it goes wrong.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

• There was a clear proactive approach to seeking out and embedding new ways of providing care and treatment to improve outcomes for their patients. For example; innovative I.T. systems were used to drive improved patient care. An example of this was the use of risk profiling of patients to identify those most at risk of admission to hospital. This helped the practice reduce the rate of admissions which allowed them to offer more support to patients. There was a reduction in emergency admissions from 92 per 1000 patients in 2013/14 to 67 per 1000 patients in 2015/16.

• A dedicated patient services manager and other staff had direct responsibility for patients with long term conditions and mental health related conditions. A direct communication route had been made available for efficient and timely access for patients.

• The PPG were pro-active in the practice and conducted regular monthly patient questionnaires and tailored questions to fit patients need, for example changes to the availability of appointments. They were also directly engaged in the contract and procurement process of a new building to site the practice. Additionally, they were actively involved with the contracted architect in the design; build and layout of the new building.

• The ‘dementia support team’ provided regular follow-up calls which ensured consistent care and support. Patients were provided with two directly named dementia champions with direct telephone numbers if they or relative/family members needed to talk or ask for advice on health related matters.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 13 June 2016

The practice is rated as outstanding for the care of people with long-term conditions (LTCs).

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

• Nationally reported data for 2014/2015 showed that outcomes for patients with long term conditions were good. However, performance for diabetes related indicators was 88.3%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 89% and comparable to the national average of 89.2%.

• 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. 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.

• A dedicated patient services manager and other staff had direct responsibility for patients with long term conditions and mental health related conditions. A direct communication route had been made available for efficient and timely access for patients.

Updated 13 June 2016

The practice is rated as outstanding 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.

• Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed patients diagnosed with asthma, on the register, who had an asthma review in the last 12 months was 72.7%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 75.8% and comparable to the national average of 75%.

• 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.

• Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed the practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 83.1%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 81.8% and comparable to the national average of 81.8%.

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

Updated 13 June 2016

The practice is rated as outstanding 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.

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

Updated 13 June 2016

The practice is rated as outstanding 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.

• The practice provided daily 6.50am appointments and late appointments till 7.30pm Wednesday and Thursday to accommodate working age people.

Updated 13 June 2016

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

• Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed 86.8% of people diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months. This was comparable to the CCG average of 85.5% and comparable to the national average of 84%.

• Nationally reported data from 2014/2015 showed the percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had a comprehensive care plan documented in their record, in the preceding 12 months was 92.2%. This was comparable to the CCG average of 88.2% and comparable to the national average of 88.3%.  

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

• The practice was an outlier for patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses and they had improved the support performance from 50.9% (March 2014) to 98.9% (March 2015).

• 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 where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support people with mental health needs and dementia. The practice had a system using an electronic tool that quickly screens and identified patients who may have dementia related conditions. This allowed the practice to efficiently monitor and sign-post patient to appropriate clinics.

• The patient services manager in the practice was part of a ‘dementia support team’ and two trained ‘dementia champions’ were responsible for providing direct care and support to patients with dementia and mental health related conditions.

• Care home staff we spoke with felt well supported and welcomed the direct support from GPs.

Updated 13 June 2016

The practice is rated as outstanding 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, travellers and those with a learning disability.

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

• 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.