Warwick House 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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. We assessed all the quality statements in the responsive key question. This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

People were involved in decisions about their care. Requests for appointments were allocated based on clinical needs. The service understood their patient population. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. Changes were identified to improve the service where required. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. For example, one person told us “my doctor has to liaise with other health professionals due to my health condition and that is done quickly and then information is relayed back if required”.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Systems and processes supported people through a multi-disciplinary approach. We saw the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The services was an Armed Forces veteran friendly accredited meaning they had staff who understood military-related health conditions and provide appropriate information and refer to specialist services.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. They also supported people and their carers when needed to find further information and access community and advocacy services. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

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. We saw complaints were managed in line with the policy. Leaders were happy to speak to people who had raised complaints so they could be looked into and where appropriate, investigated. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback. The service actively sought feedback from a variety of sources, reviewed what people were saying and had identified actions to take.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs either online, in person or by telephone. Treatment rooms were located on the ground floor, with step-free access and automatic doors at the entrance. There was a lift to support access to the lower level of the building. The service had a cloud-based telephony system to support people accessing the service by phone and an appointment management system to triage requests for appointments and prioritise those that needed to be seen urgently. We saw appointments were available on the day for urgent cases and pre-bookable appointments were available over the proceeding weeks. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they were in the process of recruiting more patient services administrators to maintain good phone waiting times. People shared positive feedback about requesting an appointment. One person told us “contacting the surgery is easy and they do reply or remedy an issue very quickly”.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are 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 positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Appointment times could be adjusted to meet the needs of people. For example, longer appointments were available for people needing an examination and may take extra time to get undressed/dressed. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. The service hosted an annual open day, welcoming local organisations to help raise awareness of the resources and support available within the community. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including temporary residents. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English. Where required, the service was able to produce information in alternative formats such as easy-read or in different languages.

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. This information was shared with other services when necessary. The records we reviewed showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, we reviewed a sample of Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) forms that had been completed by the service or by secondary care and found they were not consistently fully completed to indicate people’s future plans and wishes. The service took immediate action by initiating a review of patient records and outlined plans to evaluate the process for completing TEP forms, ensuring they included information around future treatment, particularly if completed by external services.