Bartley Green 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 service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as 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 people’s needs.

Care plans reflected the 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, were involved in planning for their care needs and in decisions about their care. For example, we saw comprehensive care plans which included patient wishes for their end-of-life care.

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.

The service was able to provide audits that evidenced their understanding of the health needs of the local community. For example, the service had completed an audit of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) alongside the local council to ensure they were able to understand the local population and its health needs. JSNA’s are often carried out by local councils or integrated care boards to determine the health needs and strategic priorities of a specific population.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. 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 access to their care records.

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 because of patient feedback, including complaints.

On inspection, the service provided copies of meeting minutes that showed learning from feedback or complaints had been shared or discussed.

There was an active PPG which had contributed suggestions for change which were implemented by the service. For example, the PPG saw positive changes because of feedback they gave the service, such as introducing a telephone triage system which had reduced telephone waiting times.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. National GP Survey Data showed that 64% of people found it easy to get through to the practice by telephone, 75% find it easy to contact this GP practice through their website, 71% find it easy to contact the GP practice through the NHS App; all of these were above the national average.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from people using services, the provider had implemented changes to improve access. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service in different ways to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. A treatment room was available on the ground floor, and an automatic door at the entrance.

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 service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. 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 to ensure equity in people’s experience and outcomes. There were processes in place to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, 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 clinical records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care. This information was shared with other services when necessary. The service provided health services to a local care home, by a designated General Practitioner (GP).We received positive feedback from the care home about end-of-life care supplied by the service and the service’s contribution towards end-of-life initiatives. However, the care home found it difficult to get consistency when the designated GP was not available, the service was responsive to this feedback.