Prince Avenue Surgery Also known as Dr Sooriakumaran & Dr Santhakumar

Updated 1 October 2015

Prince Avenue Surgery is the main site in Southend and there is a branch surgery, The Leigh Road Surgery in Leigh. We did not inspect the branch surgery. It is a two partner practice supported by regular part-time locum GPs. The practice serves approximately 4150 people who live in Southend and Leigh. The practice holds a general medical service (GMS) contract to provide their services.

The two main GP partners are male and the regular locum GPs are both male and female. The GPs are supported by two nurses, a practice manager at each surgery site, and a team of five administrative assistants/secretaries/reception staff.

The practice telephone lines are open from 8am to 8.30pm on Mondays and from 8am to 6.30pm on Tuesdays to Friday. The practice is open from 8.30am to 8.45pm on Mondays and from 8.30am to 6.30pm on Tuesdays to Fridays. The practice nurses hold various clinics. These were available on Mondays from 3pm till 5.30pm on Tuesdays from 9.00am till 12.00 noon and on Thursdays from 2pm till 5pm. The practice provided extended hours on Monday evenings from 6.30pm till 8.30pm.

Patients could book an appointment be seen at either site for their convenience.

The practice has opted out of providing 'out of hours’ services which is provided by Care UK. Patients can also contact the NHS 111 service to obtain medical advice if necessary.

Updated 1 October 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Prince Avenue Surgery on 28/07/2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately and addressed.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.

• Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and training needs had been identified and planned.

• 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 named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• The practice was well equipped and had facilities suitable 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should ensure:

• Complaints are managed within the timescales stated in the practice policy.

• Review safety issues regarding risks to patients to check that these have been addressed.

• Information regarding translation services should be available to patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. Nursing staff supported chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. 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 medication 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 holistic package of care.

Updated 1 October 2015

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. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations in comparison with other practices in the local area. 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 when clinicians came out to call patients to their rooms for their appointments. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of communication links with midwives, and health visitors.

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed that outcomes for patients were similar to nationally expected for conditions commonly found in older people.

Patients had a named GP and were able to see their GP or another GP of their choice. The practice had an effective system to ensure patients were invited for an annual health check. Patients too frail or the housebound received home visits.

The practice worked closely with other agencies. This included district nurses, continence advisors, physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, amongst others, this supported patients to maintain their independence, and prevent deterioration.

Updated 1 October 2015

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 audited and adjusted the services and appointment times it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care. The practice had recently started to offer online appointment booking and repeat prescriptions.

Updated 1 October 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia), and held shared care protocols with specialist services working jointly to improve patient outcomes. The practice regularly communicated with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

Seventy five percent of people experiencing poor mental health had received an annual physical health check.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended A&E where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

Updated 1 October 2015

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 which included travellers and those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and 95% of these patients had received a follow-up. People with a learning disability were offered longer appointments.

The practice regularly communicated 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, the lead at the practice and who to contact.