Archived: Malling Health @ Great Bridge

Updated 18 April 2017

Malling Health Great Bridge provides primary medical services to approximately 4,000 patients and is located in Birmingham. The practice population group who are aged between 25 years to 39 years is larger than the national average. Information published by Public Health England rates the level of deprivation within the practice population group as two; on a scale of one to ten, with level one representing the highest level of deprivation. Malling Health is part of Integral Medical Holdings (IMH) in 2014

Services to patients are provided under an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract. This is a contracting route available to Primary Care Organisations (PCOs) to commission or provided primary medical services within their area to the extent that they consider it is necessary to meet all reasonable requirements.

Great Bridge practice works closely with a neighbouring practice within IMH. The lead GP, practice manager and assistant practice manager work across both sites. There were two salaried GPs, one female physicians associate, an advanced nurse practitioner and a healthcare assistant. The lead GP and the practice manager form the management team and they are supported by the assistant practice manager, reception and secretarial staff.

The practice is open between 8am to 6.30pm Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and 8am to 8pm, Thursdays and Fridays. 

Appointments are available from:

8.15am to 5pm, Mondays and Tuesdays

9am to 6pm on Wednesdays

9.30am to 8pm Thursdays

9am to 8pm Fridays

When the practice is closed the out of hour’s provision is provided by Prime Care.

Updated 18 April 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Malling Health Great Bridge on 6 January 2017. 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.

• Exception reporting for the Quality Outcomes Framework was high in some areas compared to the CCG and national averages.
• 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.
• 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 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:

• The practice should continue to take action to address the lower than average ratings in the national GP survey.

• The practice should continue to review their systems to monitor and improve the higher than average exception rates for QOF performance indicators

• The practice should consider how they can improve the uptake for national screening programmes

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 18 April 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was 100%, with exception reporting of 33% compared to the CCG average of 11% and a national average of 12%.

• Performance for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) related indicators was 100%, with exception reporting of 23% compared to the CCG average of 15% and a national average of 13%.

• The practice were unable to articulate the reason for the high exception reporting. Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• 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 18 April 2017

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.

• Childhood immunisation rates for the vaccinations given to under two year olds ranged from 86% to 95% and five year olds from 79% to 93% compared to the CCG average of 86% to 94% and a national average of 88% to 94%.

• 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.

• 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, health visitors and school nurses.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 83%,with exception reporting of 5% compared to the CCG average of 9% and a national average of 6%.

Updated 18 April 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 home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• The practice was responsible for three nursing homes and one residential home and the advanced nurse practitioner visited the homes daily.

Updated 18 April 2017

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

• The practice was proactive in offering a full range of health promotion and screening that reflected the needs of this age group.

• 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.

• Appointments could be booked over the phone, face to face and online. The practice offered extended opening hours on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.

Updated 18 April 2017

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 88.5% which was below the CCG average of 92% and the national average of 93%, with exception reporting of 22% compared to the CCG average of 13% and a national average of 12%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those 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 18 April 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 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 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.