Island City Practice Also known as Lake Road 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. This is the first inspection for this practice since its new registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 79 (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. 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. The provider held specific patient support groups, for example, Healthy Leg Group, intended to support minimising leg ulcer recurrence; data was collected 8 months after the group had established and results showed that there was a 69% decrease in leg ulcer appointments. The number of patients where ulcerated legs required nurse intervention was zero. There was also a weekly social prescriber drop-in session; a monthly cancer drop-in clinic; elderly well visits and the occupational therapy team visited over 95’s living in their own home. The provider had also commenced a community work coffee morning for refugees; provided education on physical activity and better eating; menopause and wellbeing groups. The provider had recently become a Learning Disability Champion and was already an Armed Forces Veteran friendly accredited practice.

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. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other practices to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its practices to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter practices, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The practice 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. For example, a patient had handed in a prescription to reception by hand and the prescription was not processed correctly. Learning from this identified the need for staff training and this was completed.

The practice made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the 2024 National GP Patient Survey data, and from feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the practice. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the practice to suit their needs, for example, online via the website, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and an access ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to aid those with limited mobility. Routine appointment waits were on average 2 weeks for patients.

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 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. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the practice, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

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, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other practices when necessary.