Old Road Medical Practice

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 practice 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 practice ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment. People’s clinical records we reviewed had flags to reflect their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. Feedback from people we spoke with during the assessment were positive about their condition monitoring, medicine reviews, and felt staff understood their individual needs. We were told where appropriate, family members and carers were involved in peoples care and treatment decisions.

Clinical records reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs.

People could request information in alternative formats and arrangements were in place to support people who had a sensory or physical impairment.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, to provide joined-up care, and supported choice and continuity.

Leaders at the practice had a good understanding of the needs of their local population and provided services at the practice which included for example, access to a Psychiatrist for specialist mental health care appointments. They also worked with their Primary Care Network (PCN) practices to develop services to support the local population. These included pharmacist services and extended access appointments.

The practice provided appropriate information for people on their website and within the waiting room. We did not receive feedback regarding the access to appropriate information. We were told information could be requested in different formats, and we saw flags on people’s records alerting staff if they had any communication or accessibility needs.

Interpreter services were available for people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment. Staff told us about the arrangements in place to book an interpreter.

Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available within the practice and on their website.

The practice had information for people about how to share feedback, ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support on their website and in the practice. People were advised of the contact details of the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) complaints and PALS service and the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman if they wanted to escalate their complaint.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice policy. However, when we spoke with staff although had been updated about the complaints received, they were unable to recall any learning or changes that had been made following a complaint or significant event.

People who provided feedback had no concerns in this area. However, the practice had no patient participation group (PPG) to gain peoples opinion or feedback. The practice leaders told us they intended to set-up a virtual PPG, this was part of their improvement plan for development at the practice.

People we spoke with during the onsite assessment told us the recent changes had improved access. We were told the receptionists supported those who did not have internet access, a computer, or smart phone to register and book an appointment on the online booking system on their behalf. However, this new process needed to be embedded for assurance there was equity in access at the practice.

The practice provided people with longer long-term-conditions appointments to ensure a comprehensive review. People with a learning difficulty were also provided with longer appointments as part of their annual health check.

The practice environment was accessible with all treatment rooms on the ground floor with wider door apertures and an automatic door to the entrance of the building.

Practice staff and leaders told us they 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.

We received no specific feedback from people regarding their experiences in this area.

We saw that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The practice used appropriate systems to review people, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

Arrangements were in place and flags were added to people’s records for staff to engage with those who were more likely to experience inequalities in health and outcomes.

Staff and leaders told us they supported people to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We received positive feedback from people, which included the care home representatives about how the practice staff supported people to plan for their future and to meet people’s end of life care needs.

The practice held a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) policy. We reviewed records of people who had a DNACPR and found appropriate alerts were in place, this information was easily available to other health care professionals. Care home representatives confirmed their residents had DNACPR/ReSPECT documentation that was reviewed regularly with the respective residents or their carer’s.

The practice maintained a list of vulnerable people, those with palliative care needs, and people at the end of their life. There were flags on people’s record to support and review them, which included people who lived in care homes, those who were housebound, and practice staff worked in partnership with other organisations. For example, there was a weekly care home review.