Emsworth Medical Practice

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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC following its move to a new location. This key question has been rated as good.

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 the physical, mental, emotional and social needs of people, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their conditions and were involved in planning for their care needs and in making decisions about their care.

The service made reasonable adjustments to support communication, including access to interpreters and the provision of a hearing loop in reception. People had named GPs, and when booking appointments, they were routinely offered the option to see their preferred clinician.

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.

The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its local population. It had tailored its approach to reflect the diverse needs of the community. For example, the service had built relationships with local community groups to deliver health education sessions, as well as sessions to support people in accessing and using the eConsult platform.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

During the onsite visit, we observed health promotion information, including national screening and immunisation programmes, was displayed on TV screens in the waiting areas. Information was also available on the service’s website.

The service also had access to interpreter services to support effective communication with people whose first language was not English, including the provision of British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters. This ensured that people with communication barriers were able to engage in meaningful discussions about their care and access relevant health information when required.

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 found complaints were managed in line with the service’s process. Records showed concerns were investigated appropriately, and responses were provided in accordance with the service’s process. However, on occasion, there had been delays in responding to complaints due to periods of staff absence. These delays were not always communicated to people, which meant some people may not have been aware of the reasons for the longer response times. The service has since reviewed and updated its complaints process to ensure staff are clear on how to manage and redirect complaints appropriately.

The service website contained clear and accessible information for people, including details on opening times, registration processes, services provided, the complaints procedure, and how to order repeat prescriptions. Information was presented in an easy-to-navigate format, supporting people to access key services independently.

The service also made reasonable adjustments to meet the communication needs of its population. Interpreter services were available, including access to British Sign Language (BSL), ensuring that people with additional communication needs could engage effectively in discussions about their care.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and local community engagement, the provider had identified and implemented changes to improve access to the service. For example, appointment times had been extended for people with a learning disability. However, this reasonable adjustment was not consistently shared across the wider team and was mainly known only to staff who regularly cared for those people.

People could access the service in a range of ways, including online, by telephone, and in person. Consultation rooms were available on both the ground and first floors, and a lift was available for people who required it. The service had completed a risk assessment to ensure people could still be seen on the ground floor in the event of a lift failure.

During our onsite visit, the service demonstrated urgent same-day appointments were available, and routine appointments could typically be booked around two weeks in advance. Dedicated clinics, including those for phlebotomy, cytology, NHS health checks, and long-term condition reviews, had appointments available within the same week of booking.

The service also had designated appointment slots for people referred via NHS 111, which were managed by the duty doctor. In addition, other health and social care providers, such as care homes and community mental health services, were given access to a dedicated telephone bypass number to ensure timely contact with the practice in urgent situations.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, and tailored care, support and treatment in response. Feedback from people using the service, both directly to the provider and to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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 remote records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR). This information was shared with other services when necessary.

The service promoted collaborative working with community services, including those provided through the local primary care network (PCN).