University Health Service

Updated 10 January 2017

Sheffield University Health Serviceis situated in Sheffield city centre. The practice provides services for 29,880 patients under the terms of the NHS Personal Medical Services contract. The practice catchment area is classed as within the group of the fourth less deprived areas in England. The age profile of the practice population has a higher number of younger people (25,000 due to their student population) than other GP practices in the Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area.

The practice has nine GP partners; six female and three male, one male salaried GP; male, three nurse practitioners, four practice nurses, a treatment room nurse and two healthcare assistants. They are supported by a team of practice management staff and an administration team. The practice is open between 8.45am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday only. Appointments with staff are available at various times throughout the day.

When the practice is closed calls were answered by the out-of-hours service which is accessed via the surgery telephone number or by calling the NHS 111 service.

Updated 10 January 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sheffield University Health Centre on 4 November 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 been trained to provide them with 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice used proactive methods to engage with students, for example the ShefUniHealth Smartphone App and a Student Blog was available to improve health outcomes.
• The practice had developed an active health promotion strategy to improve the mental health, sexual health and travel health service of students through their Healthy Campus Project. We spoke to students who highly commended these services.
• The practice provided enhanced services to students with mental health needs for example, support packages and well being services, an eating disorder service, suicide safety plans and in-house psychologists.
• The practice encouraged a culture of practice learning to engage with minority groups such as those living with gender dysphoria and international students.
• The practice was working with other local providers such as the the Student Health and Wellbeing Partnership and in collaboration with a neighbouring practice with a high student population to develop and share best practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Create a register of carer’s

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 10 January 2017

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 lower than the CCG and national average. For example, the percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, in whom the last blood test was within normal limits was 60%; CCG average 78% and national average 75%. 
• 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 10 January 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• 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 uptake for the cervical screening programme was 66%, which was lower than the CCG average of 89% and the national average of 82%. This data may be attributed to the practice population which has a transient student population.
• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.
• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.
• All families with a newborn child had a home visit to offer health promotion advice relating to vaccinations, sleeping arrangements and child heatlh care.

Updated 10 January 2017

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 urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

Updated 10 January 2017

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

• 98% of the practice population are working age people and around 90% are students and the practice provides a wide range of clinical services to meet their needs. For example, the practice have a health promotion team who deliver events on campus all year round. They take the lead on the University Healthy Campus Project to improve health outcomes for all students.
• The practice have a communicable disease strategy which includes the provision of immunisations events on campus; being responsive to outbreaks; close working with Public Health England; the development of outbreak protocols in conjunction with the University and proactive screening for all at risk international students.
• The practice used proactive methods of engagement such at the ShefUniHealth Smartphone App and a Student Blog to improve health outcomes and develop engagement with their high student population.
• The practice had developed an active health promotion strategy to improve the mental health, sexual health and travel health service of students through their Healthy Campus Project. We spoke to students who had used these services and highly commended them.
• The practice provided enhanced services to students with mental health needs to improve health outcomes for these students.  For example, support packages and well being services, an eating disorder service, suicide safety plans and in-house psychologists.  
• The practice encouraged a culture of practice learning in order to engage more appropriately and responsively with minority groups such as those living with gender dysphoria and international students.
• The practice was working with other local providers such as the the Student Health and Wellbeing Partnership and in collaboration with a neighbouring practice with a high student population to develop and share best practice to ensure good health outcomes for their student population.

Updated 10 January 2017

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

• The percentage of patients with schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and other psychoses who had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in the record, in the preceding 12 months was 88%; CCG average 90% and national average 88%.
• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health.
• 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.  For example, the practice provided enhanced services to students with mental health needs for example, support packages and well being services, an eating disorder service, suicide safety plans and in-house psychologists

Updated 10 January 2017

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 those with a learning disability.
• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
• The practice worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.
• 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.
• The practice provided a free taxi service for non 999 hospital admisssions.