Headstone Lane 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

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. There were processes in place to deliver care in a coordinated way which met people's needs. There was a mix of face to face and telephone appointments with both urgent and pre-bookable slots available. There were arrangements in place to support people with additional needs. Policies were in place to support people near the end of their lives. However, we found the practice did not utilise fully means of obtaining patient feedback to improve services other than the national GP survey and complaints.

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.

We saw feedback from a patient who had completed an online request for GP advice or appointments. The patient was responded to within an hour and was seen that morning. The patient commented the clinician who saw them was very helpful.

Staff told us they felt supported in sharing patient feedback about the service with the leadership team.

Staff told us they provided services flexibly in order to meet the different needs of their patients. For example, they would try to accommodate people if they were running late for a smear appointment or for baby immunisations.

We did not receive feedback from partners in relation to this quality statement.

There was a process for identifying people with extra healthcare and communication needs. Alerts were added to their clinical records so that staff were immediately aware of how to assist them. Reminders were highlighted on records of patients who were overdue reviews, smears or vaccinations so that any staff interacting with them encouraged them to book an appointment.

Patient feedback collected by the provider included a compliment from a patient about how the practice made their services accessible to them outside their working hours, and supporting them despite their language barrier.

Staff told us they communicated with patients in different formats and had access to forms and leaflets translated in different languages.

There were processes for communicating with patients in their preferred language. These included mobile text messaging, letters and the use of interpreters via telephone or in person, both during booking process and the consultations themselves.

People we spoke with during our onsite assessment told us they felt able to raise concerns about their care if they needed to.

The practice had an active patient participation group at the time of our assessment; however people's views were collected through the NHS Friends and Family Test, comments, compliments and complaints.

Management told us they collected feedback from people in various formats, such as, complaints and compliments, through incidents, surveys and suggestions They told us all complaints were shared anonymously with the practice team to learn from events.

Feedback we received from patients was positive. Although some patients told us they sometimes experienced delays in getting through on the telephone whilst others did not have difficulties with accessing and gaining appointments.

Staff told us there were processes in place to ensure both positive and negative feedback about the practice was shared with the individuals and wider team. Staff gave example of how access had been improved. For example, the practice teams worked together to prioritise the answering of telephones and supporting patients at reception at peak demand times. Staff also gave examples of flexibility, with more experienced staff supporting patients at times of peak demand, whilst newer members of staff undertook other tasks.

Appointments could be made in person, via telephone or online. The practice provided 15 minute appointments with GPs to ensure patients could be fully assessed at one appointment. The practice was open Monday and Friday 8am to 6pm. Outside of these times, patients were advised to contact NHS 111 for out of hours appointments. All appointment requests were triaged and managed by an on the day team and assigned to clinical staff or signposted elsewhere, for example to a pharmacy. Patients with most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised.

Interpreters were available for patients who did not speak English as a first language. The practice was responsive to the needs of vulnerable patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues.

Feedback from people we spoke to on the day of our onsite assessment indicated they felt had access to their preferred clinicians.

Staff told us patients with a disability, for example a visual impairment, had alerts added to their records to make staff aware of their needs so they could make reasonable adjustments to support them. They told us they had access to interpreters for patients whose first language was not English or for patients with a hearing impairment. Patients with a learning disability were offered double appointments to provide additional time to discuss their needs.

Information was available on the practice website on how to access an appointment online and by the telephone when the practice was open, and how to access urgent care when the practice was closed.

There was a process for identifying and coding housebound patients, who were offered home visits. There were processes in place for prioritising vulnerable groups at risk of deterioration, including children and people receiving end of life care.

We saw decisions and care plans were created through conversations between a person, their families or advocates and health care professionals. They recorded the person’s priorities for care and treatment that could help to achieve the outcome that they would want, that would not help, or that they would not want.

Staff told us people were asked for their preferences during care and treatment when they were likely to transition into end-of-life stage in the next 12 months.

A policy was in place to support staff in the management of care for patients near the end of their lives. This included the management of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) plans and Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). There was a nominated GP lead within the practice for end-of-life care.

We saw evidence of multi-disciplinary working.