Lighthouse Group Practice

Updated 8 August 2017

Southsea Medical Centre is situated in a residential area of Southsea, Hampshire and is under the Portsmouth Clinical Commissioning Group. The practice has approximately 7,764 patients registered. There are higher numbers of patients aged 25-34 years when compared with the national average. The practice is situated in one of the second most deprived areas of England. The majority of patients describe themselves as White British and there are ethnic populations which include Black African, Bangladeshi and White Other.

Southsea Medical Centre has six GP partners, four of whom are male and two of whom are female. The practice also has a practice manager, an operations manager, four nursing staff and reception and administrative staff.

The practice is a training practice for GP registrars who are training to become GPs and the practice holds a personal medical services contract.

The practice is open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Appointments are available between these times and when the practice is closed patients are advised to contact the out-of-hours doctors via the NHS 111 service. Since June 2017 the practice has operated extended hours for pre-booked appointments with a GP every Saturday between 8am and 12pm.

We inspected the only location at:

Carlisle Road

Southsea

Portsmouth

PO5 1AT

Updated 8 August 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Southsea Medical Centre on 1 September 2016. The practice was rated good for providing safe, caring, responsive and well-led services, and was rated requires improvement for providing effective services . The overall rating for the practice was good. The full comprehensive report on the September 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Southsea Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 12 July 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 1 September 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

The practice is now rated as good for providing effective services.

Our key findings for 12 July 2017:

• There was a comprehensive and organised training schedule for all staff and an updated policy on mandatory training requirements.
• There was protected staff time for training and for practice meetings.
• Practice management had a clear oversight of all staff training requirements.
• There was a focus on communication within the practice with regards to all policy and safety updates. All staff had to sign each policy update once they had read it to ensure they were aware of the change.
• The practice was working on increasing the number of carers on its register, including working alongside local care voluntary groups and the patient participation group. A member of staff was designated to increase carer support and the practice now offered longer appointments to this patients group.
• The practice was now offering extended hours on a Saturday morning from 8am to 12pm for pre-bookable GP appointments.
• Patients with long term conditions were now offered longer appointments.
• Complaints were being dealt with comprehensively and in a timely fashion.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 18 January 2017

The practice is rated as requires improvement 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.

• Quality Framework Outcomes for patients with diabetes were higher than clinical commissioning group (CCG) and national averages. For example, 100% of patients on the register had a flu vaccine, compared with the CCG average of 95% and the national average of 94%. However, we noted that exceptions reporting for diabetes was higher than the CCG and national averages. Exception reporting for this area was 23% compared with the CCG average of 18% and the national average of 18%.

• 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 18 January 2017

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 percentage of patients who had a cervical screening test was 70% which was lower than the CCG average of 81% and the national average of 82%. The practice had taken action to improve uptake of cervical screening and their latest unverified figures were 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 and health visitors.

Updated 18 January 2017

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 patients in its population.

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

• Each patient over the age of 75 had a named GP and were offered an annual health review.

Updated 18 January 2017

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 18 January 2017

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

• A total of 92% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which was comparable to the national average.

• Outcomes for patients with a mental health diagnoses were similar to the national average. For example, 91% of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses had an agreed care plan in their records, compared with 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 living with dementia.

• The practice carried out advance care planning for patients living 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 those living with dementia.

Updated 18 January 2017

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 patients, travellers 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.