Adelaide 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 met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At the previous assessment, this key question was rated Requires Improvement. Since then, the service has re-established an effective complaints procedure, ensuring that complaints are managed appropriately, lessons are identified and acted upon, and patients are treated with openness and honesty. These improvements have strengthened the service's approach to learning and accountability, and the rating for this key question has improved to Good.

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 their 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. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

There was access to an interpreter, quiet waiting areas, and home visits for housebound patients. The facilities were suitable and included a range of adjustments and equipment to support accessibility, such as large accessible toilets, a hearing loop, and a fully functioning lift serving the two-storey premises.

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, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service operated a Genitourinary Medicine (GUM) clinic in partnership with the local council. The clinic was available to both service patients and members of the wider community who are not registered with the service. Patients could choose to remain anonymous when accessing the clinic. Appointments were available every day and the clinic was run by 2 of the service's Practice Nurses, ensuring accessible and confidential sexual health support for those who required it.

The service worked alongside the PCN to support asylum seekers residing in a local hotel. Staff attend the hotel to see patients, some of whom were registered with the practice. The team provided advice on the services and support available within the local community, helping individuals access appropriate resources. They also informed patients about the immunisation programmes, health checks, and other healthcare services available to them, promoting preventative healthcare and improving access to essential medical support.

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 about how to access their care records.

Notice boards were clearly laid out, with relevant and up to date information. The service also displayed posters to inform patients that information was available in a range of formats.

Reception staff were trained in care navigation and were able to signpost and refer patients to local services, enabling access to a wide range of support beyond general practice and ensuring a more holistic, person-centred approach to care.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

Patient feedback during the assessment indicated that most people felt listened to and were given time to talk during appointments. The latest results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 78% of people said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them during their last appointment. This was below the national (87%) and local (88%) averages.

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

The service had taken appropriate steps to reduce barriers to accessing care and treatment. For example, extended appointments were available for people with a learning disability to ensure they had sufficient time and support during consultations. People could access the service in a way that suited their individual needs, including online, face-to-face, and telephone appointments. The premises were also accessible, with treatment rooms located on the ground floor and an automatic entrance door to support people with mobility needs.

The latest National GP Patient Survey data showed that 60% of respondents rated their experience of contacting the GP practice as good. This was lower than the national average (73%) and the local average (74%).

The service recognised that patients had experienced difficulties in accessing appointments and contacting the practice. Whilst improvements had been made, some feedback continued to highlight challenges, including difficulties understanding or completing the triage form. Staff had received training to support patients and were helping people to complete the form where needed.

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 understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and they made adjustments to promote this. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

Staff demonstrated awareness of the needs of vulnerable groups and implemented systems to support equitable care. This included maintaining registers for patients with learning disabilities, using interpreter services, and applying alerts to patient records to highlight additional needs. The practice also confirmed that patients could be registered regardless of housing status if required.

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 that people were supported to consider and document their wishes for end-of-life care, including decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The practice used an electronic care coordination system to support the management of care for patients approaching the end of life, enabling advance care planning decisions to be shared appropriately across relevant services.

The practice held bi-monthly multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients receiving end-of-life care and ensure their needs were being met. Information was shared with other services when appropriate to support coordinated care. Records clearly documented decisions made, including details of discussions with patients and their families, as well as any reviews undertaken.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. We found that staff had completed the required training.