Dr Salam J Farhan Also known as Partington Central Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed all the quality statements in this key question. Our rating for this key question has improved from requires improvement to good. At this inspection we found patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. There were improved systems to keep up to date with current evidence-based practices and to manage test results. There was clear evidence of clinicians’ training and supervision. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed the care being provided and worked with other services to achieve good outcomes.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. 64% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good. This was lower than the national result of 67%.

Staff and leaders were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff told us how they checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. We discussed the way in which patients’ needs were assessed and the provider was able to demonstrate that the practice staff shared clear and accurate information with relevant professionals when deciding care delivery for patients. The provider demonstrated they used registers for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, long term conditions, palliative care, carers and safeguarding to ensure that needs were assessed and managed appropriately. During the remote searches and discussions with the lead GP we did not have any concerns about how patients’ care and wellbeing was assessed.

The practice had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice. We found that patients’ immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed and these included interventions required to ensure effective care was delivered. The practice conducted structured annual reviews for patients with long-term health conditions.

There was no specific feedback from people about the delivery of evidence based care and treatment. However, 72% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey said they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses. This was higher than the local and national results of 68%. 77% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment. This was also higher than the local and national results of 75% and 73%.

Staff told us how leaders encouraged them to learn about new and innovative approaches to improve the way their service delivered care. Staff demonstrated how clinical meetings were used to ensure evidence-based care was followed. There were also informal weekly clinical meetings where patients were discussed with peers to ensure best practice was being followed. The clinical searches also demonstrated best practice was being followed when reviewing the management of patients with long term conditions. We discussed patients with diabetes and asthma and the practice accepted where improvements could be made to manage those patients in the future.

The provider had systems to ensure staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. For example, updates were discussed at clinical meetings. Within the electronic patient record system, staff followed templates to ensure care was delivered in the most up to date and consistent way.

72% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey said they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses. This was higher than the local and national results of 68%.

Staff felt their ideas about how to improve the service were listened to. Staff told us they were kept up to date through practice meetings, minutes of these meetings were shared for staff who could not attend.

Network (PCN) told us that communication with the practice was now improved. The ICB had been attending and supporting the practice and the PCN were providing practice manager support. They told us the practice leaders attended meetings and provided input. They ensured care was delivered and reviewed in a coordinated way when different teams, services and organisations were involved.

The provider had processes in place, so information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. The provider had regular meetings to ensure all staff, teams and services worked well together. Partnership meetings were held monthly information from them was fed back at all-staff practice meetings and at clinical meetings. The meetings had standardised agendas which included learning from complaints and incidents, vulnerable patients, best practice and new guidance updates and practice news and updates.

There was no specific feedback from people regarding this.

The lead GP told us about local initiatives and what was available to patients to support them to live healthier lives. The practice had NHS health Checks undertaken by nurses and additional roles, such as clinical pharmacists provided by the Primary Care Network (PCN) to help. We saw evidence to support this during the remote clinical searches where there were no concerns. The practice was also involved in all national screening services. It was evident from discussions with the staff that they understood the requirements of their patient population.

Patients were supported to manage their health and wellbeing and where possible reduce their need for future care and treatment. They were told when they needed to seek further help and what to do if their condition deteriorated.

We saw that people were able to get test results in a way that suited them as soon as they were available. Results from the GP patient survey demonstrated that people felt their health was monitored appropriately and explained to them. 88% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This was lower than the local and national average of 92%. 91% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment which was higher by 1% than the local and national average.

We talked to reception staff and observed the way in which they dealt with people whilst on site. They were all enthusiastic about their roles and understood the needs of the people they dealt with. Work had been undertaken to improve the care-navigation role so that people received the right treatment by the right person at the right time. Clinical audits were undertaken to improve outcomes for people and to ensure learning took place. Staff showed us through feedback from patients directly to them that patients were positive about their experiences. They also showed us how complaints were encouraged, reviewed and learned from.

As part of the inspection a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor. The results from the searches demonstrated there were effective processes in place to monitor people’s care and treatment. This meant that continuous improvements were made to people’s care and treatment. We found minor areas where the practice could make improvements when dealing with patients with long term conditions and we provided details which were acknowledged and acted upon.

Clinical audits were undertaken to improve outcomes for people and to ensure learning took place. Staff showed us through feedback from patients directly to them that patients were positive about their experiences. They also showed us how complaints were encouraged, reviewed and learned from.

People received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and have appropriate support and time to make decisions.

Staff told us and demonstrated how they ensured that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. We discussed the importance of mental capacity awareness training for all non-clinical staff and the provider said this would be added to the mandatory training for all staff. From our review of clinical records, it was necessary to highlight to the lead GP the importance of documenting best interest meetings whilst a person maintained capacity.

There were systems and practices to ensure people understood the care and treatment being offered or recommended. This helped them make an informed decision.