Archived: Addington Drive

Updated 14 January 2016

Addington Drive is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide primary care services. It is located in the town of Wallsend in North Tyneside.

The practice provides services to around 14,500 patients from three locations:

• 19 Albion Road, North Shields, Tyne and Wear, NE29 0HT

• Percy Street, Tynemouth, Tyne and Wear, NE30 4HD

• Addington Drive, Hadrian Park, Wallsend, Tyne and Wear, NE28 9UX

We visited all three addresses as part of the inspection.

The practice has six GP partners, four salaried doctors, four practice nurses, two healthcare assistants, a practice manager, a practice pharmacist and 21 staff who carry out reception and administrative duties.

The practice is part of North Tyneside clinical commissioning group (CCG). The practice age distribution is broadly in line with the national average.

The North Shields surgery is located in a two storey building; patient facilities are situated on both the ground and first floor. A lift is available for patients to access the first floor. The surgeries at Tynemouth and Hadrian Park are within single storey buildings. All surgeries also offer a disabled WC, wheelchair and step-free access.

Opening times at each surgery are between 8:30am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday. All branches are closed for lunch each day between 12:30pm and 1.30pm. The North Shields branch is open until 7:00pm Monday to Thursday. The Tynemouth branch is open on Saturdays between 8:30am and 12.00pm and the Hadrian Park branch is open from 7:30am on Wednesdays and until 7:00pm on Thursdays. Patients can book appointments in person, on-line or by telephone.

The practice provides services to patients of all ages based on a Personal Medical Services (PMS) contract agreement for general practice.

The service for patients requiring urgent medical attention out of hours is provided by Northern Doctors Urgent Care Limited (NDUC).

Updated 14 January 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced inspection of this practice on 5 March 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the following legal requirements set out in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008:

• Regulation 21 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014;

• Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to Regulation 12 (2) (h) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Priory Medical Group on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had addressed all of the issues identified during the previous inspection.

• Action had been taken to improve the management of medicines and infection control arrangements.

• Appropriate recruitment checks had been carried out for staff and there were arrangements in place to ensure the GPs and nurses were registered with the relevant professional bodies.

• Infection control and health and safety audits had been carried out; action had then been taken to address any issues arising.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 14 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

Clinical staff told us care reviews for patients with long term conditions took place at six monthly or yearly intervals. These appointments included a review of the effectiveness of their medicines, as well as patients’ general health and wellbeing. Nationally reported data taken from the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) for 2013/14 showed the practice had achieved maximum points (with an overall score of 98.3%) for the majority of the 20 clinical conditions covered.

Although the practice had achieved a high overall score for QOF the exception rate was high in comparison to other practices (13.9%, compared to a national average of 7.9% and a local average of 8.7%). GPs told us if a patient did not attend appointments or respond to invites then they would be ‘exempted’, as per the QOF guidelines (QOF includes the concept of ‘exception reporting’ to ensure that practices are not penalised where, for example, patients do not attend for review, or where a medication cannot be prescribed due to a contraindication or side-effect). It was not clear what plans were in place to ensure those patients’ care was properly managed. Staff told us they continued to send invites out and tried to catch patients opportunistically and review their conditions when they were at the practice for other appointments. However, there were no formal arrangements in place for clinicians to monitor their care.

Updated 14 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

We saw the practice had processes in place for the regular assessment of children’s development. This included the early identification of problems and the timely follow up of these. Systems were in place for identifying and following-up children who were considered to be at-risk of harm or neglect. For example, the needs of all at-risk children were reviewed at multidisciplinary meetings involving child care professionals such as school nurses and health visitors.

The practice advertised services and activities available locally to families. Lifestyle advice for pregnant women about healthy living, including smoking cessation and alcohol consumption was given by the GPs and midwives. Some of the nurses were trained in family planning and the practice routinely offered contraceptive implant and coil fittings.

Appointments were available outside of school hours and reception staff had been trained to take note of any urgent problems and notify the doctor, for instance, an unwell child or parental concern. The premises were suitable for children and babies. Arrangements had been made for new babies to receive the immunisations they needed. Immunisation rates were high for all standard childhood immunisations.

Updated 14 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

Nationally reported data showed the practice had good outcomes for conditions commonly found amongst older people. The practice offered personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population. The practice had written to patients over the age of 75 years to inform them who their named GP was. The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, including offering home visits for health checks and flu vaccinations. However, the percentage of patients over the age of 65 who had received a seasonal flu vaccination was below than the overall average for other practices nationally (65% compared to national average of 73%).

Updated 14 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working age people.

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 which reflected the needs for this age group.

Patients could order repeat prescriptions and book appointments on-line. Extended hours appointments were available until 7:00pm four evenings a week and on Saturday mornings (with GPs and nurses). We saw health promotion material was made easily accessible through the practice’s website. This included signposting and links to other websites including those dedicated to weight loss, sexual health and smoking cessation. The practice provided additional services such as smoking cessation advice clinics, travel vaccinations and minor surgery.

Updated 14 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health.

Most patients experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check. The practice worked closely with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health including those with dementia. The practice had care plans in place for patients with dementia and had recently been involved in a local scheme to increase the diagnosis rates. Recording of such patients within the practice had risen from 57% to 65%.

The practice had sign-posted patients experiencing poor mental health to various support groups and third sector organisations. Well established relationships had been established with local organisations such as MIND. Information and leaflets about services were made available to patients within the practice.

Updated 14 January 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

Systems were in place in place to identify patients, families and children who were at risk or vulnerable. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with learning disabilities.

The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. The practice had sign-posted vulnerable patients to various support groups and third sector 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 and out of hours.