<p> SYDENHAM HOUSE MEDICAL CENTRE</p><p>MILL COURT ASHFORD KENT TN24 8DN TEL: 01233 645851 FAX: 01233 639267</p><p>Meeting of the PPG at Sydenham House at 1200 hrs on Thursday the 27th April 2017.</p><p>There were 14 members present. T. Bush arrived 18 minutes after the meeting had started and took over the minutes recording.</p><p>Notes before arrival:-</p><p>Vending Machine] Virtual Group ] Helen O'Neil</p><p>Ask patients their thoughts:</p><p>CQC Inspection On internet Not good rating Staff long to be told about it Not sure what is going to happen</p><p>Start at top and work down. Care was good. Staff cleaning. Key to open Box.</p><p>Notes made upon arrival.</p><p>1) The Group generally voiced their dissatisfaction at the Surgery Staff not being present at this meeting, particularly as the date fixed was long standing. It was, however, appreciated that the staff to be present, were hard pressed at this time. Discussion then ensued about the format of the CQC Inspection, particularly its outcomes, and a comparison was made with other surgeries in the area and within the same clinical group. The findings and outcomes did not reflect well upon the Practice. A discussion then continued as to how the Group could help the Practice in practical terms to improve the standards inspected. This led onto the fact that Terry had spent a number of hours during last Monday morning (24.04.17) with the staff, some managers and patients. The exercise was to help familiarise with the work undertaken on a typically busy morning in the Reception Area. The objective was to help understand the practical issues the staff dealt with in a typically busy Practice; the impact upon the patients and how this was managed by the administrative and receptionist staff; to make an observation and acquaint with staffing practices and with the staff. The opportunity meant that several staff and two practice managers were spoken with, together with two patients. A limited number of documents were seen to clarify understanding of the overall Practice governance. The notes made at the time were made known briefly to the group, and could be used for further reference at a more appropriate time. Terry made known to the group that he valued the experience and the help and understanding of the staff who readily and willingly accommodated the intrusion into their work. It was felt amongst the group that more members would benefit the experience into identifying the nature and range of work the staff undertake, thereby providing an informed opinion and understanding within the group.</p><p>2) The group felt that one of the GPs within the practice should always attend the meetings and was an essential element of contribution. A discussion ensued of merits of different doctors attending the meeting and whether Junior Doctors would be appropriate.</p><p>3) A discussion took place about the new appointment system to be introduced to the Practice on the 2nd May 2017. A circular that explained the system was handed out for information. There was a degree of disgruntlement expressed amongst the members who felt this matter should have been</p><p> www.sydenhamhouse.co.uk made known to the group before being enacted upon. Some members felt they should have been consulted to enable their input into the process. Both David and Terry stated they had had the opportunity to discuss the issues with a manager and although it removed an appointment option from the patients, was generally accepted and practised within other surgeries in the area. The system had been set up to prevent 'walk in appointments' which caused problems and tended to be the same patients who always bypassed the normal process. This was undertaken through a telephone triage system; on the day appoints that could be undertaken through the internet; and routine appointments that could be booked a week in advance. A discussion revolved round the triage system, particularly. The members felt this would need to become familiarised to patients who had expressed it an intrusion into their privacy. The group felt that the new system needed to be monitored and regular reports made back to the meeting.</p><p>4) Repeat Prescriptions. It was felt that there were still problems within the system and these needed to be discussed. An example of some of the issues were made known to the group, together with other observations. The group felt this matter needed a lengthy discussion at the next meeting. An understanding of the lawful process, or guidance on such, was thought to be a useful element as input to the group beforehand. Once undertaken, the whole process could be critically analysed. An input from the local CCG was thought to be useful if it could be arranged.</p><p>5) Healthwatch: The group were informed about prescription service waste changes that will be made soon.</p><p>Meeting ended 1443hrs. Next meeting to be arranged.</p>