PROSPECT ROAD SURGERY
MINUTES OF MEETING ON 22.7.14
Present:
(Chair) (JM), (RB), Dr Ron Diffey (GP Partner) (RFD), Lesley Hampson (Practice
Manager) (LH), (ED), (SD), (JW), (RT)
Apologies:
SC, RO, JW, MA, MM, CT, RS, HMC, GP, MV
Minutes:
Lesley Hampson
Item
1.
Minutes of the last meeting
The minutes from the meeting held on 20th May 2014 were agreed.
2.
Matters arising
LH confirmed that the facility to leave prescription requests out of hours on the
prescription answer phone had now been set up. Nobody present in the
meeting had yet tried this.
The number of DNA appointments was discussed. JM asked what the cost of a
wasted appointment is and whether there is a standard calculation of this. RFD
had recently read that the standard cost of a GP appointment is deemed to be
around £30 and this surgery works on average to 15 minute appointments. LH
gave out the latest summary of DNA figures. These showed a 25% drop in
wasted appointments between May and June 14, with June 14 being the
lowest number since September 13 that had been wasted. This is attributed to
the text message reminder facility being set up in June 14. RFD commented
that the media had also perhaps played a part in bringing about the
improvement as there had recently been much focus on this subject.
LH informed the meeting that from April 15 the surgery will be required to pay
for a text message facility - currently this is a free service to the surgery that
comes with the clinical system. LH plans to set the surgery up on a system
known as MJOG (Memory Jog) which work had started on some time ago but
was brought to a halt by a problem with the way patients’ mobile telephone
numbers had transferred over from the old clinical system to the new one. All
staff are aware of this and everyone is working towards clearing this problem
and getting up to date contact telephone numbers for patients. A details
update form has been introduced on reception so that the staff can check that
the surgery holds the correct details for patients.
Action
By
3.
Survey Action Plan progress
LH ran through the progress that had been made to date with the actions
agreed on the patient survey action plan for last year.
Developments since the last update were discussed. The GP Partners have
decided to go ahead with some new signage for the building which will include
a large sign for outside the surgery and new signs to direct patients around the
building. The plans were passed around the meeting. The front of the building
will also be painted shortly and the weeding etc done. This work will include
cleaning up the paving on the ramp as per the action set in the survey action
plan last year.
JM and JW have met with LH and Wendy the Assistant Practice Manager to
discuss the information displays and notice boards in the waiting areas. It was
felt that these are very cluttered and that this detracts from the usefulness of
the information presented on them. JW is a graphic designer and has a great
deal of experience in working on such projects. The PRG notice board was
discussed. LH asked for people who would be willing to have a photograph and
some information about themselves displayed on the board. It was decided
that the notice board would be sourced and put in place and then discussions
could take place about what would be put on it. LH explained that the intention
behind the PRG notice board is to give information about the group to the
wider patient population in the hope that they would bring matters to the
group to take up on their behalf, and also to perhaps help recruit some new
members.
LH updated the group on her work on the recalls system. The final stages to
this is to put some information on the website for patients and update the
practice leaflet to inform patients of how the new system works and of how
the surgery manages chronic diseases. LH passed around the suggested
wording for the website which was agreed by the group.
There has been no progress with the TV display screens however LH has now
found an IT firm that is in the process of trying to sort out the problems with
the patient check in screens. LH explained that when the check in screen is
working life is a lot easier for the Reception team.
The first batch of DNA letters had been sent out in June. Of the proposed
letters the one with the softer approach had been selected by the PRG group
as the one to try. LH explained that a list of frequent DNA patients had been
sent to each of the GP’s responsible for those patients and letters had been
sent to only those patients that the GP deemed suitable to receive the letter.
The impact of the letters on the DNA figures remains to be seen.
LH asked the group if they wanted to carry out a full patient survey this year as
this was no longer a requirement of the Patient Participation Enhanced Service.
LH suggested that patients may start to disengage with this process if the same
or similar type questions were asked each year and it may only be worth doing
a survey if there were specific issues that information was needed about. It is LH
also very expensive to carry out a full survey. JM commented that last year’s
survey gathered a great deal of useful information because some of the
questions were very open ended. SD suggested that the surgery staff may be
best placed to decide on what topics if any should be surveyed. LH suggested
that she ask the clinicians and reception staff about groups of patients that
were harder to reach and communicate with as this would be more in the spirit
of this years Enhance Service specification. LH to report back to the next
meeting on the outcome of this.
4.
Communication of test results
CT, who was unable to attend the meeting, had put forward an agenda item to
ask the group to discuss who should inform patients of their test results. She
had recently been told a result was ‘abnormal’ by a receptionist but was given
no further information about this. Whilst this did not cause her any alarm she
was concerned that this could worry some patients. She had suggested that
only GPs or Nurses should give out test results.
RFD explained that the new computer system had made the whole process of
communicating results more complex. Also the volume of results that the GP’s
are now dealing with has risen considerably – he deals with around 200 results
each week. More results are now being handled by the nurses given that the
surgery’s chronic disease management is largely nurse led. LH informed the
group that the subject of communicating test results had been in discussion in
various practice meetings recently and was still being debated. It is not possible
for GPs and nurses to inform every patient about every test result. The GP’s
will actively pursue informing patients of results that mean further action LH
needs to be taken. For other results they will be filed by the GP and patients
can chose to ring in for them or not. The issue of Reception telling patients that
a result was ‘abnormal’ had recently been addressed and they have been asked
not to do this. Instead they will inform the patient that the test needs to be
repeated, or that they need to come in to see the GP / Nurse. They have also
been asked not to tell a patient that a result is back but the GP hasn’t filed it
yet so they can’t tell them what it is – instead they will inform the patient that
the result is not back and they will wait until the GP has filed it and left
comments on it. LH is aware that the policy for communication of test results
needs firming up- this is one of the pieces of fine tuning that needs to be
carried out following the change of clinical IT systems. LH will get the policy
finalised and bring it to the next meeting for further discussion. Once approved
and in place , information about the test result process will be communicated
to the whole patient population on the website and the practice leaflet.
5.
Complaints, Suggestions and Praise
LH explained that the group is required to seek feedback from patients from
various sources in order to identify any issues that may need addressing by the
group. A standing agenda item has been created so that complaints and
suggestions can be discussed each meeting. As this was the first time this had
been done LH discussed all of the complaints (anonymised) received by the
Practice since 1st April 14. LH explained the process for dealing with complaints
in the practice and said that in her opinion the practice is very good at dealing
with complaints and learning from them. RFD is the complaints Partner. All of
the complaints are discussed annually with staff as are the comments and
suggestions left by patients in the main waiting room suggestions box.
The group agreed that to have so few complaints since April is very impressive.
The members present felt that the matters discussed did not raise concern
about any particular problematic themes emerging and largely some of the
things were down to communication issues on the part of the patients as well
as the surgery.
LH explained that the comments and suggestions box is emptied weekly and
the comments are summarised and feedback left on a quarterly basis in the
waiting room. This had not been done for some time and Wendy the Assistant
PM is in the process of updating the feedback folder for the waiting room. The
group discussed the comments and suggestions left since January 13 to
present. Further discussion took place about the front Reception desks in the
waiting room. LH agreed with one of the comments left in that the desk makes
patients feel as though they haven’t been seen. The Receptionists can in fact
see that people are stood at the desk as they have a mirror to help with this
but as they can’t acknowledge the patient in any way if they are on the
telephone the patients don’t always realise that someone has seen them. LH
and RFD explained the plans that are currently in place to look at moving the
main telephone desks so that they align with the Reception counter so that
staff can acknowledge patients even if they are on the phone. RB asked if the
existing front desks could be moved to save money and LH explained that this
had been looked into already but had been found to be potentially very
expensive due to the wiring and plumbing behind them which would need to
be altered . ED suggested making one of the sides of the desk lower for smaller
patients or those in a wheelchair. RFD explained that at the time the desks
were put in their design was deemed to be the most secure for protecting staff.
LH to look into this further.
6.
LH informed the group that the Practice has received very positive feedback
about Dr Datt joining the Partnership and that patients are very pleased with
him and like him very much.
Update on local health priorities
RFD updated the group on the recent dismantling of the Pain Clinic at the
hospital which in his view had been completely mismanaged. Patients had
LH
been dropped and told to go to see their GP and left with no support etc.
The other hot topic on the local agenda is still urgent care services and the
potential closure of Castle Health Centre’s walk in facility. An integrated out of
hours service and emergency care facility is being discussed.
7.
Any Other Business
RT asked if was still a problem that GP’s were choosing to work in hospitals
rather than in GP surgeries. RFD explained that the problem is around
recruitment of GP’s and this year the GP training scheme is short of recruits
which could cause major problems in around 4 years - time when the trainees
come off the training scheme. LH explained that the fact that the practice is a
training practice has helped to recruit GP’s in the past – Dr Datt did his training
in the Practice which is why he chose to come and work here.
RB informed the group about a recent issue he had taken up with NYCC about
cutting of grass verges and a potential problem with tics that may emerge as a
result of their decision not to cut any grass.
JM informed the meeting that in the next meeting the group needed to put
forward nominations for the group Chair as her year as Chair was now up. All PRG
Some members of the group felt that JM should remain as Chair – the matter members
will be discussed further in the next meeting.
8.
LH to send out a suggested timetable (see below item 8) for the next year of
LH –
meetings. JM requested that weeks of bank holidays be avoided.
complete
see
below
Date and Time of Next meeting
The suggested timetable for the next year of meetings is as follows. To be
agreed.
Tuesday 21st October 2014
Tuesday 20th January 2015
Tuesday 21st April 2015
Tuesday 21st July 2015