Clay Cross 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

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. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 68 (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. Our review of clinical records showed that people 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. For example, the service provided a weekly ward round at 2 care homes to review the care of people living in the home and engaged in multidisciplinary meetings to support people near the end of their lives and people with frailty.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population for example, the Primary Care Network. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, the practice provided a carer's café to support carers.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. They had access to interpreter services, a hearing loop and could provide information in large print for people with a visual impairment. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

Information for people using the service was available on display boards within the waiting room. For example, carers, the menopause and mental health. Health promotion leaflets were available, for example, sepsis, stroke and cancer awareness.

The service supported 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. Staff were aware of how to support people to raise a complaint with the practice.

Complaints were mostly managed in line with the practice’s policy. However, people were not always informed of how to escalate their concern if they were unsatisfied by the response from the practice.

Most staff told us that learning from complaints was not always shared with them.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Data from the GP Patient Survey showed that 42% of respondents to the GP Patient Survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone. This was comparable with the national average of 50%.

Data showed that 49% of respondents were positive to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice. This was below the national average of 67%. In response to this, the practice had installed a new cloud based telephony system with the facility for call backs. They had also signed up to the General Practice Improvement Programme which offered support to GP practices to improve patient access, increase efficiency and improve staff well-being.

People could only book appointments by calling or visiting the practice on the day at 8am or by completing the online eConsult form. Staff expressed concern that they could not pre-book appointments unless someone released appointments for them. We received 2 negative patient comments from Healthwatch regarding poor access to appointments. The CQC received 1 negative comment as part of this assessment.

There was level access to the practice and electronic doors, toilets and parking for people with a disability.

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.

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.

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. 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. The practice engaged with the wider multi-disciplinary team to support the care of this group of people.

Feedback from 2 care homes where the practice provided care and treatment was positive about the support people at the end of their lives received from the practice. They told us that people and their families were included in decisions to put Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) plans in place and that DNACPR plans were reviewed in a timely manner.