EMC 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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. However, the provider has remained the same. Under the previous registration they were rated requires improvement on 13 March 2020.This provider has improved and is now 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 ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs.

Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. We saw that 93% of respondents to the GP patient survey stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to which is in line with the national average of 92%.

Information about patients’ care and treatment needs were available and shared appropriately between services when required.

Services were tailored to meet the diverse needs of the population, with a focus on promoting health education and preventative care initiatives. The importance of flexibility was evident in the way services were delivered. For example, people with disabilities such as Autism were priorotised for apppointments due to their specific needs. Systems were in place to alert staff to any specific safety or clinical needs, ensuring that patients received appropriate and coordinated care. We saw that people knew staff and could ask for a particular staff member should they wish to see them and it was possible with regards to staff availability. We saw that the provider worked with the local community to establish better service in innovative ways such as a YouTube channel as well as local religious establishments.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language (BSL). Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. We saw that the provider had created a ‘YouTube’ page where clinical staff discussed matters important to people’s health such as screening and immunisations. They used different languages to communicate so that people who did not speak English could understand the issues raised.

However, we found that leaflets and literature within the waiting areas were not always provided in alternative languages or formats. The provider explained that ongoing construction work in some of the practices had affected the availability of these materials and that they intended to provide alternative language leaflets within the waiting areas.

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.

Results from the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey showed that 88% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last appointment which was in line with national averages.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. The provider held a quarterly thematic review to understand potential patterns of complaints and if actions taken had been impactful.

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

According to the National GP Patient Survey data, 72% of people responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice, which was above the national average of 69%. The GP Patient Survey further showed that 70% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by phone, compared with the national average of 53%.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to further improve access to the service. For example, the provider introduced the use of online triage forms and pharmacy first where staff had been upskilled to support people. This was in line with NHS Englands initiative around access. There was a social prescriber appointed and recruitment of further auxiliary roles such as clinical pharmacists to further increase the capacity for face-to-face appointments.

The provider's patient survey and Friends and Family Test data indicated that people had positive experiences of the practice. Staff spoke a range of languages, which people using the service valued and helped improve communication and access to care.

However, we found that there were no chairs with arms in reception areas. Chairs with arms help people with limited mobility to sit down and get up safely. The provider has ordered suitable chairs for all sites after our inspection.

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 mainly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities.

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 practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who could not speak English or have access to the internet.

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.