Gray’s Inn Medical Group Vauxhall

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, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 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.

People were also involved in decisions about their care. This was reflected in the National GP patient survey which showed that 89% of patients felt that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment (National Average 91%).

The practice actively encouraged patients to become involved with how the practice delivered services, including by promoting the PPG on their website.

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 had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, patients under the age of 5 and over the age of 70 were offered same day appointments. Saturday appointments were also available for people who could not attend weekday appointments. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

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.

This was reflected in the National GP patient survey which showed that 84% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment (National Average 87%).

The service actively sought and analysed patient feedback and implemented action plans to improve patient experience. Patients could provide feedback through a variety of ways including through a comments box in the reception area or electronically by scanning a QR code.

The service had an effective complaints process, and complaints were acted upon and shared during team meetings to assist with learning.

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

The premises was accessible to all patients. For example, the service offered extended appointments for people with a learning disability. There was a hearing loop at the reception desk and a separate entrance for patients with mobility issues and a ramp for wheelchair users. Posters were displayed in the reception area inviting patients to say if they had a preferred method of communication.

Patients could contact the service by telephone, online or through the NHS App. The result of the National GP patient survey showed that the service was performing close to or above national averages in this area. For example, 63% of patients felt that it was easy to contact the service by telephone (National Average 50%), and 65% were satisfied with their overall experience of contacting the practice (National Average 67%).

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.Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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 did 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.