Berrycroft Community Health 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 assessed all the quality statements in the responsive key question. We found that patients were not always able to access the services they needed in a timely manner. The practice had adjusted their services and worked with local stakeholders to improve patient care and also changed internal patient triaging to ensure the most urgent needs were prioritised. The premises were suitable for people who needed reasonable adjustments in order to access their care. There was a process for handling 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.

Patient feedback from the 2023 GP national survey showed that 88% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment compared to the local average of 92% and national average 90%.

Staff told us they communicated with patients openly and provided information in formats that helped them to understand their care, treatment and conditions.

Staff reported they had access to information in various formats and languages to support patients with accessing care and support. They informed us about the processes in place to manage care with other providers such as hospitals and care homes.

A local care home reported that the practice worked in partnership with them to deliver care to their residents enabling continuity and integrated care.

The practice coordinated patient care to enable management of multiple conditions together and holistically for patients. This included reviewing patients long term conditions and prescribed medicines at one time to promote efficient and overarching reviews of needs. There were specific registers for patients who had specific needs and the service considered the circumstances of these patients. For example, there were flags or alerts on the patient record system to alert staff if a patient was a carer or had a learning disability.

Patient feedback indicated no themes regarding provision of information from the service.

Staff told us they always attempted to communicate with patients clearly about their conditions and provided information to help them understand their health conditions, their treatments and how to self-care. Patients had access to the social prescriber aiming to support them to take greater control of their own health.

The practice provided patients with opportunities to provide feedback about their care through the friends and family test and their own surveys. They made their complaints process available to patients.

We looked at a complaints log and saw that complaints from patients were logged, considered, responded to and used to inform the service of potential improvements. We saw patients engaged in feedback mechanisms such as surveys and friends and family test feedback.

Staff were aware of patient feedback and specifically about the concerns patients had regarding access to services and appointments. They were knowledgeable about the actions taken to improve access and attempts to meet the demand on services.

Patients were informed via newsletters, the practice website and via information boards in the premises about changes made to the provision of services as a result of their feedback.

There was an internal survey undertaken by the practice in February 2024 with 1171 patient responses. This identified that 52% of respondents found it fairly or very difficult to get the medical help they needed and 33% said their needs weren’t met by the practice. In the last GP national survey in 2023 26% of patients described their experience of making an appointment as good compared with the local average of 55% and national average of 54%.

Leaders and staff were aware of the difficulties patients were having in accessing appointments. They were also aware of what actions were being taken to improve patient experience.

The practice had taken a number of measures to try and improve access for patients. They had system to direct patients to NHS 111 for an appointment and this assisted the practice in triaging patients based on urgency and type of need. In addition they had placed a GP with the reception team to assist in clinical triage aimed at driving efficiency in signposting and allocating patients to the correct clinician or alternative service. There was a diversity of clinical appointments available to a diverse range of services, such as emergency care practitioners, practice nurses, minor illness nurses, trainee GPs, healthcare assistants and social prescribers (non-clinical staff who can assist in a number of ways and work with a range of external support services). Long term conditions management had been made partially virtual to enable a more streamlined approach which was overseen by the nursing team with support of the GPs. Saturday clinics were provided for patients who could not attend appointments during normal working hours. Patient feedback was not yet showing a significant improvement in outcomes as the changes needed time to reflect in patient experience.

Patients benefitted from a purpose built premises which was accessible for people with limited mobility and there were adaptations for people who had sensory impairments. In the 2023 GP national survey 77% of patients said the healthcare professional they last saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern, compared to 85% locally and 84% nationally.

Staff were aware of the variety of measures in place to meet the diverse needs of their patients including those with disabilities and those at risk of harm or abuse.

The website enabled patients to access information in a range of languages and telephone translation services were available. There were arrangements to support people with no fixed address in order to ensure they could access appointments. Home visits were offered to vulnerable or housebound patients.

Patients did not provide specific advice about being supported to plan for their future needs.

Nursing staff informed us they provided and involved patients with their care plans to enable them to plan and manage their health conditions.

There was a process for implementing and reviewing Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.