Brownsover 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 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 71 (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 ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs. Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Results from the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey showed that 94% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment, this was above the national average of 90%.

Information about patients’ care and treatment needs were available and shared appropriately between services when required. Services were tailored to meet the diverse needs of the population, with a focus on promoting health education and preventative care initiatives. The importance of flexibility was evident in the way services were delivered. Systems were in place to alert staff to any specific safety or clinical needs, ensuring that patients received appropriate and coordinated care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information that was 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 services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The practice offered hearing loop support, a chaperone service and a quiet room for confidentiality.

The practice staff told us they could offer large print, British Sign Language support, interpreters and language line services. They also offered email or text only responses, longer appointments and carer or advocate involvement. The practice also offered a wide range of literature in a variety of languages throughout the practice.

Staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

We found people had multiple ways to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the GP National Patient Survey.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. The complaints policy was available on the practice website and included information for patients about how to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others, this learning was not just in house but across all of the provider’s services.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

According to the National GP Patient Survey data, 70% of respondents reacted positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice, which was below the national average of 77%. The GP Patient Survey further showed that 47% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by phone, compared with the national average of 57%.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, the provider introduced rapid health which is an AI online triage form to allow patients to bypass the phone queue, which was well received by patients. The provider had a central triage hub which monitored call data. During the assessment, we found that these changes had improved access for patients and the provider had introduced in house surveys to further understand patients’ needs to improve access. The provider had evaluated google reviews to understand patients’ frustrations and reported an increase in ratings due to proactively addressing concerns. However, further improvements were required to increase overall satisfaction with telephone access.

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 mainly 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 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 service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

The practice held the Special Allocation Scheme (SAS) contract which meant the practice provided temporary primary care service to patients on the scheme who had no healthcare provision, the scheme is designed so the patients will be allocated back into mainstream care. The practice had a risk assessment for their special allocation scheme (SAS) contract which provided details on how the clinics were operated and the staff involved. This risk assessment evaluated the impact on the service, to the team and patients which had led to embedding new processes, this included a phone system to support better access for patients and to allow calls for SAS patients to be directed to a separate line. Each patient on the SAS had their own risk assessment so staff could effectively triage and support their needs and the needs of the practice population.

The practice held a Learning Disability Friendly Practice Award in recognition to their support to vulnerable patients by increasing their accessibility.

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 services when necessary.