Willington Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Our review of clinical records showed the majority of people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Feedback received by CQC indicated the majority of people had confidence in the clinical staff, including GPs, nurses and practice pharmacists.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments.

The practice had access to translation services and a hearing loop. Relevant information was recorded on the patient records. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

Information for people using the service was on display and leaflets were available. This included information for carers and veterans, and information about mental health, healthy eating, cervical screening and wellbeing.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Information on how to escalate concerns was shared with people in the service response and in the complaints leaflet. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, changes were made to the baby changing room/breastfeeding room and the children's area in the waiting room had a 'revamp'.

The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes.

Feedback was overwhelmingly positive.Feedback from the care home we spoke with was very positive about how people were listened to and supported.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patients were able to book appointments in person, over the telephone and online. The service had reviewed capacity and demand to identify how many on the day appointments were needed in relation to prebookable appointments and build the rotas accordingly. Staff told us the current system worked well. The service aimed to make appointments with the right clinician first time and people could also be booked into other services, for example booked appointments at the walk-in centre.

National GP Patient Survey data and the majority of feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the service. Most people reported they could get an appointment quickly, although others commented about long delays. Indicators showed 70% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, in line with the national average of 67%. In addition, 59% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, slightly above the national average of 50%.

The member of the Patient Participation Group attended the service every morning to support people using the service, for example, assisting people to use the blood pressure machine. Consulting and treatment rooms were on the ground floor and there was level entry to building with electronic doors. Facilities for disabled people included a low level reception counter for wheelchair users, a disabled toilet and disabled parking spaces. There was also a dedicated baby changing room and breast-feeding room.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet.

A recent incident had highlighted the way the service registered people who lived alongside the canal placed them at risk of not receiving hospital correspondence, due to the hospital not identifying the correspondence address correctly. The service amended their process to record one address on the electronic record, which was the name of the boat, care of the Post Office.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

Feedback from the care home was positive about how the service supported people to plan for the future. They commented on end of life care the service was exceptional, and the clinicians were supportive and listened to and valued staff feedback. The clinicians discussed care and treatment with the person and their families to enable them to make an informed choice.