Archived: Ivel Medical Centre

Updated 18 February 2016

Ivel Medical Centre provides a range of primary medical services to the residents of Biggleswade and the surrounding villages. The practice has been at its current location since 1973 and is moving to new premises on 18 January 2016. There is a dispensary at the practice that provides medicines for patients who live more than one mile from a pharmacy.

The practice population is pre-dominantly White British with a higher than average 50-75 year age range. National data indicates the area is one of low deprivation. The practice has approximately 10,800 patients. Services are provided under a general medical services (GMS) contract.

There are five GP partners, three male and two female, who run the practice with the support of the executive director. The nursing team consists of one matron, two minor illness nurses, one practice nurse and two health care assistants. There is an office manager who also holds a nursing qualification and a number of reception and administration staff.

The practice is open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday and offers extended opening hours from 7am on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings. They also open one to two Saturday mornings per month.

When the practice is closed out of hours services are provided by MDoc and can be accessed via the NHS 111 service.

Updated 18 February 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Ivel Medical Centre on 24 November 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. They had received training appropriate to their roles.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• The practice worked well with the patient participation group (PPG) and responded to suggestions for improvements.
• The practice made the best use of their premises to meet patients’ needs and had plans to move to a new building in January 2016.
• 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 improvement are:

• Complete the appraisals for the non-clinical staff.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 18 February 2016

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 similar to the CCG and national average. The practice achieved 88% of available points compared to the CCG average of 86% and the national average of 89%.

• 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.

Updated 18 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 A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations.

• Their uptake for the cervical screening programme was 81%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 82% and the national average of 82%.

• 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 and health visitors.

Updated 18 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.

• They employed a matron to support the GPs in the care of older people.

Updated 18 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 online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

• Telephone consultations and early morning appointments were available.

Updated 18 February 2016

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

• 94% of people diagnosed with dementia had had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months.

• Performance for mental health related indicators was better than the CCG and national average. The practice achieved 100% of available points compared to the CCG average of 94% and the national average of 93%.

• 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 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 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.

Updated 18 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 vulnerable circumstances including 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.