Dr Jude's Practice - Riverside & Picton

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last inspection we rated this question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff spoke positively about the people they cared for and understood the importance of protecting people's privacy and dignity. Staff also described positive working relationships with colleagues from other organisations and how they treated them with kindness and respect.

The practice was accredited as veteran friendly and had systems in place to ensure veterans could access appropriate support. Results from the National GP Patient Survey reflected mixed patient experiences. For example, 75% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment, which was lower than the local score of 88% and national score of 86%. In addition, 75% of respondents said the reception and administrative team were helpful, compared with 85% locally and 83% nationally. The practice demonstrated that the GP Patient Survey results may be influenced by the characteristics of its registered population, including a transient community and a culturally diverse patient group. They had developed a patient feedback questionnaire which was given to patients who attended for consultation. All feedback reports and action plans were discussed within practice meetings. The practice had also recently implemented Patient Participation Group (PPG) meetings which took place every 6 weeks, however they were continuing to try to improve attendance.

Staff treated people as individuals and took account of their personal needs, preferences and circumstances when planning and delivering care. They understood the diverse needs of their patient population and adapted the service to help ensure people could access care and be involved in decisions about their treatment. Communication needs were identified and met to support people to understand information and make informed decisions about their care. Results from the National GP Patient Survey reflected lower than average patient experiences. For example, 64% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment, compared with 76% locally and 74% nationally. These results were still low nationally but were higher than the previous survey. However, CQC did not receive any direct patient feedback.

Staff supported people to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment and respected their right to make informed choices. Where appropriate, patients and their carers were supported to access advocacy and community support services.

A total of 87% of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey said they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment, compared with 93% locally and 93% nationally. The practice had systems in place to respond to people with urgent needs. An appointment triage system ensured people requiring same-day assessment or treatment were prioritised appropriately. Staff understood the process for referring people who required emergency support, including those experiencing a mental health crisis, to the appropriate services. The practice was in the process of formally training all reception and administration staff in structured care navigation to ensure that there were no missed opportunities when triaging patients.

The practice had effective systems in place to respond to people's immediate needs. Same-day appointments were available, and an appointment triage system ensured people requiring urgent assessment were prioritised appropriately. Telephone consultations were also available where these met people's needs and helped improve timely access to care. Staff demonstrated a proactive approach to identifying and responding to people's needs. They acted on electronic patient alerts, conducted opportunistic health checks during appointments and used effective call and recall systems to encourage people to attend for reviews, screening and immunisations. Staff were also able to provide opportunistic phlebotomy during appointments, reducing the need for people to return to the practice.

We saw examples of care being tailored to meet individual needs, including for people with a learning disability. Staff knew their patients well and adapted the support they provided where required. We also observed staff responding effectively to the needs of the practice's diverse population. During the assessment, we saw a receptionist communicate fluently with patients in 3 different languages, helping people to access information and support without delay.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.