This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 07/2015 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Kumar and Partners – Studfall Medical Centre on 23 March 2018. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• Positive events, compliments and complaints were recorded as significant events and learning was identified from them.
• The practice had systems and policies in place to safeguard children and vulnerable adults.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Patients were referred to support services to help manage their health and well-being. For example, veterans of the armed services were identified and referred to support organisations to help them with post-traumatic stress. Patients were referred to a local First for Wellbeing team commissioned by the Borough Council for support on emotional wellbeing, smoking and alcohol cessation and weight management.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Feedback from patients was positive. The practice scored above average in many areas of the national GP patient survey published in July 2017.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• The practice had a complaint policy and procedures that were in line with recognised guidance. However, an initial response to the complainant within three days as stated in the policy was not evidenced for all complaints.
• The practice had identified 72 patients as carers (approximately 1.3% of the practice list). The practice did not have an identified carer’s champion. Carers were offered a referral to Northamptonshire Carers Association, a charity that supports unpaid carers.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Manage complaints in accordance with the practice policy and the recognised guidance and contractual obligations for GPs in England.
• Consider ways to further support patients who are also carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Studfall Medical Centre on 30 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.

• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

• Patients gave consistent positive feedback regarding the care they received. This was confirmed by patients we spoke with and from comment cards and the PPG members. We also observed acts of kindness throughout our inspection which appeared to enhance the patients experience.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a 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 proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice in the responsive domain relating to older people and those patients with long term conditions.

• The practice engaged well with their patient participation group (PPG) and supported them with the implementation of activities such as patient education sessions to include patients and relatives suffering with and affected by long term conditions such as diabetes and respiratory problems. They also supported the PPG on-going programmes to promote healthy lifestyles such as a community walking group and coffee mornings to prevent social isolation.
• The practice collaborated with another local practice to propose the setting up of a community hub to provide healthcare and facilities for healthy lifestyles and the proposal was being reviewed by the relevant funding organisation.

However, there was also an area where the practice needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

• Consider periodic review of the actions from significant events to confirm they have been effective.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice