The Wellbridge Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Wellbridge Practice on 9 January 2017. 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.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.
• 90% of patients said they could get through easily to the practice by phone (national average 73%).
• The practice worked closely with a volunteer car service. The service transported patients who could not attend to the practice and the local hospital, and collected prescriptions from the practice dispensary.
• The practice participated in a social prescribing scheme to support patients who attend their GP surgery but did not necessarily require medical care. Social prescribing supported patients with issues such as social isolation and coping with caring responsibilities, to connect to services and groups that could help improve their wellbeing and meet their wider needs.
• Staff had lead roles that improved outcomes for patients such as a carer’s lead.
• 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.
• When there were unintended or unexpected safety incidents, patients received reasonable support, truthful information, a verbal and written apology and were told about any actions to improve processes to prevent the same thing happening again.
• The practice hosted a talking therapy service for patients who had experienced bereavement, were carers, or were experiencing mental health issues. The service was funded by the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) and was available on referral.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• There were several examples of the practice proactively working with its patient participation group (PPG) to make changes to the practice management team. These suggestions had been acted upon and as well as this, the group had raised awareness to patients about practice services. The practice and PPG set up a support group for patients who had experienced bereavement. A member of practice staff who was a trained CRUSE bereavement counsellor facilitated the sessions. Each session was attended by an average of six patients and the group met weekly for a total of eight weeks. The practice and PPG also established monthly ‘Health Education Evenings’, for hard to engage patients. Invited health care professionals focused on issues such as exercising, smoking cessation and diabetes management. The education evenings attracted around 30 patients.

We saw one area where the provider should make improvement:

• The provider should continue to make efforts to identify a greater proportion of carers from its patient list, to better support the population it serves.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice