Dr Polkinghorn and Partners Also known as The Market Surgery

Updated 28 January 2016

Dr Polkinghorn and partners practice (also known as The Market Surgery) is situated within a purpose built surgery in Wath Upon Dearne, Rotherham. The surgery was orginaly built in 1989 and has been extended and upgraded over the years, with last extension being added in 2011. The building has a car park and disabled access.

The practice provides General Medical Services (GMS) for 10,600 patients in the NHS Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area.

There are five GP partners, three male and two female and five Salaried GPs, three female and two male and one registrar.

The practice opening hours and surgeries are 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. The practice provides extended hours from 7.30am to 8am on a Tuesday. Longer appointments are available for those who need them and home visits and telephone consultations are available as required.

Out of hours services are provided by Care UK. The Out of Hours service is provided from the Rotherham Walk in Centre.

The practice provides training in general practice for doctors and nurses.

The practice is registered to provide the following regulated activities; maternity and midwifery services; surgical procedures, family planning, diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Updated 28 January 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Polkinghorn and Partners on 18 November 2015. 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. However, information on escalating a complaint was not routinely provided to complainants.
• 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:

• An analysis of all significant events received over an extended period was not undertaken to enable patterns and trends to be identified.

• There were no records to evidence the fire alarm had been tested regularly to ensure this was in working order.

• Information about the Ombudsman was not routinely provided to complainants.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 28 January 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.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was 87.2% which was similar to the CCG 82.7% and national average 89.2%.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medicines 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. These patients were reviewed three monthly and received a copy of their care plan.

Updated 28 January 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 accident and emergency attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively 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.

• The practice’s uptake for the 2014/15 cervical screening programme was 81%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 82.5% and the national average of 83.3%

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

Updated 28 January 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.

• It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• All patients over the age of 75 years had an annual review which could be combined with a long term condition review. All patients’ who had a review received a copy of their agreed care plan.

Updated 28 January 2016

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 had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.

• The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 28 January 2016

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

• Performance for mental health related indicators was 73.1% which was significantly worse than the CCG, 90.7%, and national average of 92.8%. The practice was aware of these figures and had put measures in place to improve the care for this group of patients. For example, a GP and a nurse had taken a lead role for ensuring patients with mental health problems were assessed annually. An update on assessment of mental health had been provided in a clinical meeting and care plans had been reviewed for these patients. A standardised template had been developed which incorporated physical health checks and mental health review and additional time was allocated for these reviews which were at least an hour long. The uptake of cervical smear tests for women in this group was above the national average at 86%. The practice had also facilitated ‘Stress Busting’ workshops at the practice.
• The practice had 106 patients diagnosed with dementia, a prevalence rate of 0.9%, which was comparable to the CCG and national average. The practice provided evidence that they continually screened and reviewed these patients and data from the practice showed a 20% increase in the diagnosis rate in 2014/15 when compared to figures from 2013/14.

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

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support people with mental health needs and dementia.

Updated 28 January 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.

• A GP, and a healthcare assistant (HCA), had lead roles to manage and coordinate the reviews and care for people with Learning Disabilities.

• It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

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

• It had 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 in normal working hours and out of hours.