Knights Hill Surgery, West Norwood Health and Leisure Centre, 25 Devane Way, London.
Knights Hill Surgery in West Norwood Health and Leisure Centre, 25 Devane Way, London is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 18th September 2017
Knights Hill Surgery is managed by Dr Sarah Hawxwell and Mr Sunil Gupta who are also responsible for 3 other locations
Contact Details:
Address:
Knights Hill Surgery Suite 1 West Norwood Health and Leisure Centre 25 Devane Way London SE27 0DF United Kingdom
Telephone:
02030490700
Ratings:
For a guide to the ratings, click here.
Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good
Further Details:
Important Dates:
Last Inspection
2017-09-18
Last Published
2017-09-18
Local Authority:
Lambeth
Link to this page:
Inspection Reports:
Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Knights Hill Surgery on 14 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Knights Hill Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 5 September 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 14 December 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.
Overall the practice is now rated as good.
At our previous inspection on 14 December 2016 we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services as the results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were less satisfied than patients at other practices with GPs, nurses and reception staff. The practice had not carried out systematic analysis of the survey results.
We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services as evidence showed the practice responded to issues raised, but was not following their own policy or national guidance when responding, and information provided to patients about how to escalate complaints was incorrect. Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice below average for ease of making an appointment, and for ease of access to preferred GPs.
We also highlighted in the original inspection other areas where the provider should take action:
Implement effective security and monitoring arrangements for prescription forms and pads, and ensure that mechanisms to monitor emergency medicines and prescriptions awaiting collection are effective.
Continue to monitor and take action to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes.
Monitor and take action to improve patient satisfaction with consultations with GPs, nurses and engagement with reception staff, and with making an appointment.
Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.
Our key findings at this inspection were as follows:
The practice had reviewed its complaints procedure and now provided accurate information to patients and responded to complaints in line with its policy.
Results from the national patient survey 2017 indicated that patient satisfaction with how they were treated and their involvement in their care had increased, and was now similar to CCG and national averages.
Results from the national GP patient survey 2017 showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment remained mixed, with satisfaction with making an appointment and with access to a preferred GP still below local and national averages although they had improved.
We also found that the provider had taken the following action to address the areas where we suggested they should make improvements:
The practice had reviewed the security and monitoring arrangements for prescription forms and pads. Blank prescription pads were now locked in a cupboard within a lockable room to which only certain staff had access. An additional security camera had been placed outside the door. A record of prescription pad serial numbers was being maintained and the practice had put a specific policy into place for storage and handling of prescription pads. Any prescriptions in printers were removed and locked away at the end of each day. The practice had also reviewed it system regarding prescriptions awaiting collection. A member of staff checked on a monthly basis to ensure there were no prescriptions awaiting collection for more than two months. If there were they were passed to the pharmacist who would liaise with the patient and, where necessary, the GP. We checked the emergency medicines and found they were all in date.
The GP partner had taken on the oversight of the diabetic patient register, and told us they were reviewing this in a monthly basis. They had put into place a plan and procedure for improving diabetic care. This included booking a first appointment with the health care assistant who would collect bio-data such as body weight, height, BMI and carry out a urinalysis. They would also arrange for a blood test. A virtual clinic was available for patients to consult with specialists. Data provided by the practice indicated the practice’s Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) performance has improved from 67 points to 81 (out of a possible 86). (QOF is a system intended to improve the quality of general practice and reward good practice.) The practice pharmacists carried out medicines reviews and liaised directly with patients where appropriate.
The practice had reviewed the outcomes of the national patient survey and had taken steps to address the areas where they had fallen below average. For example, permanent GPs had been appointed as had an additional pharmacist and reception staff had undergone customer care training. Patient feedback had improved in most areas.
The practice had a pack containing information for carers, and at every new patient registration reception staff were expected to ask if the patient was also a carer. The practice had identified it had 157 patients who were also carers. Whilst this number had increased since the last inspection so had the patient list size, so the percentage of identified carers remained at just under 2%.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Knights Hill Surgery on 14 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Knights Hill Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 5 September 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 14 December 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.
Overall the practice is now rated as good.
At our previous inspection on 14 December 2016 we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services as the results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were less satisfied than patients at other practices with GPs, nurses and reception staff. The practice had not carried out systematic analysis of the survey results.
We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services as evidence showed the practice responded to issues raised, but was not following their own policy or national guidance when responding, and information provided to patients about how to escalate complaints was incorrect. Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice below average for ease of making an appointment, and for ease of access to preferred GPs.
We also highlighted in the original inspection other areas where the provider should take action:
Implement effective security and monitoring arrangements for prescription forms and pads, and ensure that mechanisms to monitor emergency medicines and prescriptions awaiting collection are effective.
Continue to monitor and take action to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes.
Monitor and take action to improve patient satisfaction with consultations with GPs, nurses and engagement with reception staff, and with making an appointment.
Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.
Our key findings at this inspection were as follows:
The practice had reviewed its complaints procedure and now provided accurate information to patients and responded to complaints in line with its policy.
Results from the national patient survey 2017 indicated that patient satisfaction with how they were treated and their involvement in their care had increased, and was now similar to CCG and national averages.
Results from the national GP patient survey 2017 showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment remained mixed, with satisfaction with making an appointment and with access to a preferred GP still below local and national averages although they had improved.
We also found that the provider had taken the following action to address the areas where we suggested they should make improvements:
The practice had reviewed the security and monitoring arrangements for prescription forms and pads. Blank prescription pads were now locked in a cupboard within a lockable room to which only certain staff had access. An additional security camera had been placed outside the door. A record of prescription pad serial numbers was being maintained and the practice had put a specific policy into place for storage and handling of prescription pads. Any prescriptions in printers were removed and locked away at the end of each day. The practice had also reviewed it system regarding prescriptions awaiting collection. A member of staff checked on a monthly basis to ensure there were no prescriptions awaiting collection for more than two months. If there were they were passed to the pharmacist who would liaise with the patient and, where necessary, the GP. We checked the emergency medicines and found they were all in date.
The GP partner had taken on the oversight of the diabetic patient register, and told us they were reviewing this in a monthly basis. They had put into place a plan and procedure for improving diabetic care. This included booking a first appointment with the health care assistant who would collect bio-data such as body weight, height, BMI and carry out a urinalysis. They would also arrange for a blood test. A virtual clinic was available for patients to consult with specialists. Data provided by the practice indicated the practice’s Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) performance has improved from 67 points to 81 (out of a possible 86). (QOF is a system intended to improve the quality of general practice and reward good practice.) The practice pharmacists carried out medicines reviews and liaised directly with patients where appropriate.
The practice had reviewed the outcomes of the national patient survey and had taken steps to address the areas where they had fallen below average. For example, permanent GPs had been appointed as had an additional pharmacist and reception staff had undergone customer care training. Patient feedback had improved in most areas.
The practice had a pack containing information for carers, and at every new patient registration reception staff were expected to ask if the patient was also a carer. The practice had identified it had 157 patients who were also carers. Whilst this number had increased since the last inspection so had the patient list size, so the percentage of identified carers remained at just under 2%.
©2019 Care Services, all rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without permission of the copyright holders.
