Archived: Dr Abdul Jabbar Also known as Dr A Jabbar (The Health Centre)

Updated 17 August 2016

The Dr Jabbar Practice is located in the Harold Hill Health Centre in Romford, North East London within the Havering Clinical Commissioning Group. The practice holds a General Medical Services contract (an agreement between NHS England and general practices for delivering primary care services to local communities). The practice provides a full range of enhanced services including childhood vaccination and immunisation, dementia support, influenza and pneumococcal immunisations, rotavirus and shingle s immunisation and unplanned admissions.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to carry on the regulated activities of maternity and midwifery services, diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The practice has a patient list size of approximately 2,325 at the time of our inspection.

The staff team at the practice included one lead GP (male), one salaried GP (female), one GP locum (female), one practice manager and two practice nurse (females). The practice had six administrative staff.

The practices opening hours are:

• Monday to Friday 9.00am to 6.30pm.

Appointments are available at the following times:

• Monday to Friday (with the exception of Wednesday) 9.00am to 11am and 4.00pm to 6.20pm.

• Wednesday 9.00am to 11.00am

Outside of these times cover is provided by the locally agreed out of hours provider.

To assist patients in accessing the service there is a telephone queueing system, and a text message reminder service for scheduled appointments. Urgent appointments are available daily. Weekly there are a total of 10 GP sessions and nine nurse sessions available to patients.

Updated 17 August 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Abdul Jabbar on 26 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

• 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 available and easy to understand.

• 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 proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Review audit systems in relation to prescription pads.

• Improve access for working age people (including those recently retired and students).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 17 August 2016

The practice is rated as good 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.

• The percentage of patients on the diabetes register with a record of foot examination and risk of classification within the preceding 12 months was 94% compared to the national average of 88%.

• 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 17 August 2016

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.

• Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and we saw evidence to confirm this.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours. However, the practice did not openbefore 9.00am and there were no extended hours clinics to suit the needs of working age patients or families with children.

• The percentage of patients with asthma, on the register, who have had an asthma review in the preceding 12 months that includes an assessment of asthma control using the three Royal College of Physicians questions was 83% compared to a national average of 75%.

Updated 17 August 2016

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 people in its population.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs. Records showed that all housebound patients had been seen within the last six months.

• Patients on the palliative care (end of life) register were given a direct bypass number to enable them to contact the surgery during opening hours and out of hours.

Updated 17 August 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

• The age profile of patients at the practice is mainly those of working age, students and the recently retired but the services available did not fully reflect the needs of this group.

• The practice did not offer extended opening hours for appointments. Patients could book appointments or order repeat prescriptions online.

• Health promotion advice was offered and we noted that there was accessible health promotion material available at the practice.

Updated 17 August 2016

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

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

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

Updated 17 August 2016

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 people, travellers and those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.

• 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.