Archived: City Health Care Partnership CIC - The Calvert Practice

Updated 2 December 2016

The Calvert Practice operates from premises purpose-built and is situated in the west of Hull City. The practice provides services under an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract with NHS England, Hull Area Team to the practice list of approximately 2,700 patients of all ages. There are disabled parking spaces. All patient services are on the first floor which is served by a lift.

The practice has one male GP and one female GP, one practice nurse and a healthcare assistant. They are supported by a practice manager, a data quality manager and four reception and administrative staff. A senior administrator and a senior receptionist work at this practice and another. Regular locum GPs are used.

The practice was open between 8am and 6.30pm Monday to Friday. GP appointments were from 9.30am - 11.40am and 2.40pm - 4.50pm Monday to Friday. Nurse appointments were available 8am to 12pm Monday to Friday, 1pm to 3.30pm Tuesday and Friday afternoon and until 6.30pm on Thursday. 

The practice, along with all other practices in the Hull CCG area have a contractual agreement for NHS 111 service to provide Out of Hours (OOHs) services from 6.30pm. This has been agreed with the NHS England area team. The majority of patients are of white British background. The practice population profile is similar to the England average except for the 0-4 years age group which is higher than the England and CCG averages.

The practice scored two on the deprivation measurement scale, the deprivation scale goes from one to ten, with one being the most deprived. People living in more deprived areas tend to have a greater need for health services. The overall practice deprivation score is higher than the England average, the practice is 37.9% and the England average is 26.6%.

The practice has opted out of providing out of hours services (OOHs) for their patients. When the practice is closed patients use the 111 service to contact the OOHs provider. Information for patients requiring urgent medical attention out of hours is available in the waiting area, in the practice information leaflet and on the practice website.

Updated 2 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at City Health Care Partnership CIC - The Calvert Practice on 30 August 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.
• Some patients said they found it was not easy to make an appointment with a named GP, that there was little continuity of care and urgent appointments were not always 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.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 2 December 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.

• 93% of patients on the diabetes register, with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015). This was comparable to the CCG average of 91% and the national average of 88%

• 77% of patients with asthma, on the register, had an asthma review in the preceding 12 months that included an assessment of asthma control using the 3 RCP questions. (01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015). This was comparable to the CCG average of 75% and the national average of 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 2 December 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 A&E 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 cervical screening programme was 87%, which was higher than the CCG average of 79% and the national average of 74%.

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

Updated 2 December 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.

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

Updated 2 December 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. However, extended hour appointments with GPs were not offered and extended hours appointments with nurses were only offered at a different practice.

• 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 2 December 2016

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

• 74% of patients with schizophrenia and other psychoses had a comprehensive, agreed care plan documented in the record, in the preceding 12 months. This was comparable to the CCG average of 72% and the national average of 76%.

• 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 2 December 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 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.