Abbeyview 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 involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement.

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care. Patients told us that accessing appointments was sometimes difficult. The practice were developing their new online triage system which was a period of change for the practice. Urgent and routine appointments were appropriately managed. The GP National Survey data showed below national average results in contacting the practice via phone and their website. The PPG felt the practice involved them in decisions and were responsive to their suggestions.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The practice worked in partnership with other services to address the needs of their community. The community engagement event organised by the practice allowed for collaboration with external services and placed an emphasis on topics relevant to the needs of their community where people could access further support and encouraged people to take ownership of their own health. This was a well received event and the practice demonstrated they understood local needs.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. A range of information on aspect of health for all ages and local support groups was on display. Multiple health information leaflets were available. Translation services were available. People were able to access their health and care records.

The practice had reviewed recent Friends and Family data and were beginning to work through improvements they could make. The practice had formulated their own action plan in relation to the results from the National GP Survey. The practice had an inconsistent method with managing complaints and learning was not always shared with the whole team. The practice were beginning to review themes from complaints and adapt how they managed these going forward. Significant events were not managed effectively, often lacking detail relevant to investigating the incident and documented action.

The service did not always make sure that people could access care and support when they needed it. A change to an online triage system had led to a period of transition for the practice and its patients. The National GP Survey data for the last 2 years shows people struggled to access the practice suitability and was below the national average. A recent Friends and Family test evidenced showed some improvement in access, however, direct patient feedback to the CQC showed that people still found it difficult to access the service. The practice supported those who were unable to use the internet and the PPG aided in providing additional support to those access online services. The practice was located on ground floor level to allow access for all. The practice offered longer appointments to those with learning disabilities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Patients with additional needs were offered extended appointments to make care more equitable. There were appropriate methods in place for people to leave feedback and the practice were beginning to action issues that had arisen from this. Translation services were offered where needed.

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. Records we reviewed showed people were supported to make decisions about their end of life care, including DNACPR, and this was sensitively done. Information was shared with other services when necessary, such as palliative care and community teams.