Uni-City 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 practice met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. This is the first inspection for this practice since its new registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Requires Improvement.

This service scored 62 (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 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. The practice promoted the various events, for example, Mental Health awareness week and sun awareness week.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The practice worked in partnership with other practices 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 support the homeless. There was good monitoring of patients who required referrals to secondary care and good evidence of patients being supported in a timely manner. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. There was evidence to demonstrate the provider followed up ‘did not attend’ appointments by telephone and referring to relevant teams, such as safeguarding leads, if needed.

The practice did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was not available in different languages. The practice had a poster on display informing patients that staff were British Sign Language trained, however, when we spoke with staff, they said they had not received such training. Information provided by the practice did not meet the Accessible Information Standard for example, there were no options to have forms available in different languages.

The practice had a complaints process for patients to access. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. However, complaints were not managed consistently in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was not evident, and staff were not able to identify any changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints. There was evidence to demonstrate complaints were discussed at some clinical meetings however, learning from complaints was not discussed, documented nor subsequently cascaded out for staff to learn from. On review of the service’s complaints log, 17 complaints had not been closed in line with the timescale as detailed in the complaint’s policy. Nor was there any information to demonstrate why the timescale had not been met. However, representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) felt the provider engaged with patients in a positive way and staff were very helpful.

The practice made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Treatment rooms were available on three floors and there was an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to aid those with limited mobility. Routine appointment waits were, on average, 3 weeks for patients. Results from the 2024 National GP Patient Survey showed 63% of people found it easy to contact the GP via telephone which was above national and local averages. However, only 43% of people found it easy to contact the GP practice via the website. This was below national and local averages.

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. Feedback provided by people using the practice, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive in this area. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted 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. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, however DNACPR’s records were not being consistently monitored. This information was shared with other practices when necessary.