Archived: Sycamore House Medical Centre

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sycamore House Medical Centre 25 September 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

• what we found when we inspected
• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

• The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice had reviewed and re-organised the way in which services were delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• Daily urgent care clinics for minor ailments were managed by the Advanced Nurse Practitioners and clinical pharmacists, and GPs appointments were 15 minutes for patients with more complex needs.
• The practice had introduced dedicated ‘urgent child’ appointments to facilitate rapid access for young children to been seen the same day.
• All requests for home visits were triaged through the dedicated home visiting team, which resulted in patients being seen by the most appropriate clinician or managed through a telephone consultation if appropriate.
• The culture of the practice and the way it was led and managed drove the delivery and improvement of high-quality, person-centred care.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. For example: the practice encouraged and supported the staff to develop their skills and knowledge, the development to non-clinical champions for cancer care, carers and people with a learning disability.
• The practice had successfully bid for NHSE funding via the clinical pharmacists in general practice scheme and utilised the role to increase the number of medication reviews for patients with complex poly pharmacy and provide an efficient, safe response time to repeat prescription requests.
• Non-clinical staff had been supported through the apprenticeship scheme to develop their skills and knowledge.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

• Update the chaperone policy to include where staff should stand during the examination.
• Obtain the full immunisation status for all staff.
• Formalise and document the clinical supervision discussions and review of consultations.
• Develop an inhouse appraisal for salaried GPs.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care