Fir Tree Medical Centre

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment in January 2023, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 68 (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. Records and discussions with staff demonstrated people’s care plans were up to date relating to their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. People who used services including carers and dependants, were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. For example, patients on the end-of-life pathway. Records showed people had been informed about their condition, care and treatment options, including any associated risks and any advice provided. People who used the service were given the opportunity to provide feedback to CQC via a link sent to patients as a text message. We received feedback from 27 people and 22 were positive about the treatment and care they had received.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. For example, during January 2025 the service opened on a Saturday to improve access for working patients. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. Staff worked with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People could expect information to be tailored to their individual needs, which included, making reasonable adjustments for disabled people and providing interpretation and translation services for people who did not speak English or who used British Sign Language. People who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice kept a log of formal and informal feedback from all sources and used it to make improvements. Our review of a sample of individual complaints showed the service had reviewed all complaints and discussed these at staff meetings. However, we looked at 4 complaints and found there was incomplete records to show how the complaint had been investigated and that appropriate actions were taken for 2 complaints reviewed.

Patients responded positively in the national GP patient survey for questions related to the healthcare professional being good or very good at listening to them, treating them with care and concern and involving them as much as they wanted in decisions about their care.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues. The service monitored patient views via the NHS Friends and Family Test and NHS online feedback. During the assessment we spoke with one member of the practice Patient Participation Group (PPG) and the feedback we received was extremely positive. Meetings were held quarterly and were attended by the management team.

People could access services when they needed to, for example digital, language, home visits and disability. Physical premises and equipment were accessible, and people were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Staff and leaders used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access. However, the percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice was 54%, which was below the national result of 74%. The percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 19% which was below the national result of 49%. The service was aware of the concerns raised for getting through via telephone and a new phone system was upgraded and installed in May 2024. These results were regularly discussed at staff meetings to reflect on how this could be improved.

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. People who used the service were given the opportunity to provide feedback to CQC via a link sent to patients via a text message. Most responses indicated that access to appointments had improved across the last 12 months, and some reported they had received prompt and responsive services from staff.

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and supported to plan for these. 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. Staff told us they attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss supporting people receiving end of life care.