King's Medical Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at King’s Medical Practice on 9 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 GP or nurse 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 practice had the skill mix and staff available to meet the needs of patients.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

We saw three areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice had a very effective and caring approach to palliative care. We saw evidence that they worked closely with patients, families and other health and care providers in relation to palliative care planning and end of life care planning.

• The practice offered pre-diabetes screening for patients. The programme involved patients being screened for long term blood sugar levels. Those at a pre-diabetes level were sent an information pack and offered support to discuss improvements and changes in lifestyle and diet. Patients were then recommended to have their blood sugar levels monitored on a 12 month basis to establish if they had moved from having pre-diabetic status to diabetic status.

• The practice had a very strong training and staff development culture. For example the practice was an advanced training centre and four clinical staff were accredited trainers. Staff were encouraged and supported to progress through career pathways. Additionally opportunities within the practice had been developed for apprenticeships and the practice had a number of apprentices on the staff structure.

There was one area where the provider should make improvement:

• The practice needed to develop a more effective system for monitoring patients who had been prescribed potentially toxic drugs. We noted four patients who had been prescribed an antirheumatic drug but had failed to have appropriate blood tests performed. Of these only one had evidence of subsequently being recalled for a test by the practice. Since the inspection we have been informed that all patients were followed up by the practice and appropriate tests had been carried out.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice