Hodford Road 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.

At our last assessment under the previous provider, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained the same.

This service scored 71 (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.

The latest national GP patient survey found that 94% 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, above the local average of 84% and national average of 86%. Additionally, 89% of respondents found the reception and administrative team helpful. This was above the local average of 80% and national average of 83%.

The practice involved patients and carers in planning and decision making, providing choice and control over their care. Staff considered patient needs and preferences when making reasonable adjustments for appointments.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice collaborated with mental health community teams for referrals and support and staff would signpost patients to community services where appropriate, including social prescribers and smoking cessation services. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. Staff considered patient needs and preferences when making reasonable adjustments for appointments and would support patients in registering them on the NHS application. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. Patients in vulnerable circumstances, including asylum seekers and homeless patients, were able to register with the practice and use the practice for correspondence.

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

The practice took measures to ensure information was accessible and met patients’ needs. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The practice had a hearing loop system available to support patients and braille signage in consultation rooms. The practice had staff who spoke multiple languages to assist patients and staff would provide information in different formats and languages where required. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

The service did not always have effective processes for managing complaints.

Results from the latest national GP patient survey found that 92% of respondents were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was similar to the local average of 90% and national average of 91%. 94% of respondents had also felt that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them, exceeding the local average of 85% and national average of 87%.

We saw complaints were not managed in line with the practice’s policy, as responses were not always documented. However, we reviewed meeting minutes and found learning from complaints was evident with mitigations outlined for staff to follow. The practice did not have an active PPG. However, we spoke with previous members who have told us the practice had been attempting to engage more members.

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

Results from the national GP patient survey indicated that 87% of respondents found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone. Additionally, 62% found it easy to contact this GP practice using their website. This was higher than the local average GP score of 50% and national average of 51%. 65% of respondents have also found it easy to contact this GP practice using the NHS app. This was higher than the local average GP score of 46% and national average score of 49%.

The practice offered telephone, online and face-to-face appointment access. The practice routinely collected feedback through multiple channels including the Friends Family Test, iPlato responses, Google reviews and verbal feedback during consultations and at reception. Staff would regularly share and discuss feedback through meetings and one-to-one meetings. In response to patient feedback, the practice had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, issues with the callback process had led to reception staff providing clearer explanations during the initial call, reducing the number of patients being asked to call back. The practice provided early access with telephone consultations starting at 7:30am and patients could also access out-of-hours appointments within the Primary Care Network. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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 was predominantly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination and leaders sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. The practice routinely offered longer appointments for frail patients, those with multiple conditions and patients requiring interpreters. The practice employed staff with trauma-informed training and experience in specialist homeless services which provided tailored care for asylum seekers, refugees and homeless patients. The practice also implemented accessible communication measures including interpreter access, braille signage and a hearing loop available at the reception. There was a low threshold for home visits which ensured housebound and vulnerable patients received timely care.

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.

We did not see that DNACPR decisions had been coded consistently in patient’s clinical records. The practice told us that people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

This information was recorded on an external system and shared with other services when necessary, including cancer care teams. The patients we spoke with during our assessment told us they had felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment.