Archived: Queens Road Surgery

Updated 10 March 2016

Queens Road Surgery and their branch surgery located at St Peter’s Health Centre provide Primary Medical Services for approximately 5,828 patients in Leicester City. The practice has a Primary Medical Services Contract (PMS). A PMS contract is a local contract agreed between NHS England and the practice, together with its funding arrangements.

We inspected the following location and their branch surgery where regulated activities are provided:-

• Queens Road Surgery, 282 Queens Road, Leicester, LE2 3FU

• Dr Mansingh & Partner, St Peter’s Health Centre, Sparkenhoe St, Leicester. LE2 0TA.(Branch surgery).

The practice is located within the area covered by Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The CCG is responsible for commissioning services from the practice. A CCG is an organisation that brings together local GP’s and experienced health professionals to take on commissioning responsibilities for local health services. Leicester City is one of the most diverse and disadvantaged urban areas in the country. Leicester has a young population. About 60% of people living in Leicester are under the age of 40 and there are fewer people aged 65 and over compared to the national average. Approximately 50% of patients are from ethnic minorities, with nearly a third of the population

being South Asian. The city has the largest Indian population of any local authority area in England, while it also has thriving communities of people originating from Somali, middle eastern, African and eastern European backgrounds. Leicester City has some of the most deprived areas and patients have some of the worst health of anywhere in the country. Leicester has the 20th most deprived population in England and about half of patients are considered to be highly disadvantaged.

Updated 10 March 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Queens Road Surgery 7 May 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for all population groups.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. A new system was in the process of being embedded and information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and managed.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
• 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 made available.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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 listened to feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should :

• Implement a cold chain policy and ensure fridge temperatures are reset daily.
• Check the emergency oxygen levels and equipment at more regular intervals in line with national guidance.

• Ensure there is signage on the room which contains oxygen and emergency equipment.

• Ensure the system of changes to patient’s medication on the computer system being made by a GP is embedded to reduce the risk of errors.

• Create a patient participation group (PPG) by 31 March 2016 in line with contractual requirements and in order for patients and the practice to work together to improve the service and improve the quality of care patients receive.

• Implement further training for the infection control lead and also to ensure staff awareness of the about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consent.

• Ensure the new system for reporting and reviewing significant events is fully embedded.

• Ensure PGD’s are signed by all relevant staff.
• Ensure actions identified in infection control audits and spot checks are allocated and completed.
• Update details in safeguarding policy and ensure all staff aware of safeguarding lead.

• Implement multi disciplinary meetings.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 6 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. Patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. Structured annual reviews were undertaken to check that health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 6 August 2015

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 a robust system for following up children who did not attend for immunisations.

Immunisation rates were 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. Appointments were available outside of school hours . We saw evidence of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Updated 6 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and patients spoke positively about this. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. Patients at high risk of emergency admissions had been identified to reduce admissions to secondary care.

Updated 6 August 2015

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 offered services that were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care. The practice had recently introduced a website in order to promote online services as well as a wide range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 6 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). In order to support patients experiencing poor mental health,the practice held a register of patients with significant mental health problems. There were 99 patients on the register and 85% of those had a care plan in place. These were not personalised but the template was comprehensive. Similarly, there was a template care plan in place for patients with dementia. In the last year, of the patients on the mental health register 92% had received a blood pressure check and 86% of those eligible had undertaken cervical smear screening.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency (A&E) where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

Updated 6 August 2015

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 such as those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and 16 of the 25 patients of these patients had received a follow-up. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

The practice told 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.