Healy Medical Centre

Updated 16 June 2016

Healy Medical Practice is located in Hackney, East London. The practice has a patient list of approximately 5,203. Fifty one percent of patients are aged under 18 (compared to the national practice average of 15%) and 15% are 65 or older (compared to the national practice average of 17%). Forty five percent of patients have a long-standing health condition.

The services provided by the practice include child health care, ante and post-natal care, immunisations, sexual health and contraception advice and management of long term conditions.

The staff team comprises two GP partners (one male and one female, both working 1 whole time equivalent (WTE))), one part time female practice nurse (0.8 WTE), a female healthcare assistant (0.8 WTE), a practice manager, secretarial and administrative staff. The practice also employs two regular long term locum GP’s (male and female, both 1WTE). Healy Medical Practice holds a General Medical Service (GMS) contract with NHS England.

The practice’s opening hours are:

• Monday –Friday 8am-6:30pm

Appointments are available at the following times:

• Monday :8:30am-12:30pm and 2pm -6pm
• Tuesday: 8:30am-12.30pm and 1:30pm-8:15pm
• Wednesday 08:30 - 12:30pm and 2pm-6pm
• Thursday 09:00am-12:30pm
• Friday: 8:30am-12:30pm and 2pm-6:00pm

In addition to pre-bookable appointments that could be booked up to four weeks in advance, urgent appointments are also available for people that needed them.

Outside of these times, cover is provided by an out of hour’s provider.

The practice is registered to provide the following regulated activities which we inspected: family planning, treatment of disease, disorder or injury; diagnostic and screening procedures and maternity and midwifery services.

Updated 16 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Healy Medical Centre on 25 April 2016. 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 with the exception of those relating to Patient Group Directions.

• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with 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.

• Not all staff acting as chaperones had received a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

• 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.

• 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:

• Ensure Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are completed for chaperones.

• Undertake Mental Capacity Act training for nurse and healthcare assistant.

• Ensure all carers are identified and supported.

• Review system and monitoring of production of PGD’s for compliance

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 16 June 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.

• The percentage of patients on the register in whom the last blood pressure reading was 140/80 mmHg or less was 78.4% compared to the national average of 78.03%. The percentage of patients on the diabetes register with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months was 96% compared to the national average of 88%.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 16 June 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.

• 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.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 81.3%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 81.2% and the national average of 74%.

• 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.

Updated 16 June 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. This included a direct telephone line to bypass the appointments switchboard and a named GP for all patients aged over 75.

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

Updated 16 June 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.

Updated 16 June 2016

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

• The percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses who had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in their record was 89% compared to the national average of 88%. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those 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 16 June 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 homeless people and those with a learning disability.

• 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.