The Medic Care Surgery

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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand, responding and support people with individual needs. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

Staff took responsibility for lead roles in different specialisms to support people to understand their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided.

Staff told us patient preferences were taken into consideration when booking appointments. Female and male staff were available at the practice. Where appropriate, staff ensured carers and dependants were involved in the planning and making shared decisions about the person’s care and treatment.

People reported high levels of satisfaction with staff. In the national GP patient survey 2024 92% of respondents stated they believed the healthcare professionals had all the information they needed about them. This was comparable with the national average for patient responses and above the local average.

People received care and treatment from the service that demonstrated an understanding the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were delivered flexibly.

Respondents to the national GP patient survey for 2024 reported positivity on the service they received with 95% stating they knew what the next steps would be within two days of contacting the practice. This is above the local and national averages for patient experience.

There were effective systems in place to ensure newly diagnosed people had access to information about their conditions and had been signposted to support services they may wish to access.

Staff told us they kept people and those important to them updated on the outcome of concerns reported. We reviewed complaint records and saw people had been updated in a timely and appropriate manner.

There were established and effective processes for people to feedback on the service and care they received independently of the national GP patient survey or Friends and Family test. The practice had advertised their active patient participation group as an established means of communicating with patients and understanding the potential impact of changes to how they deliver services. The members met in person and minutes of the meeting were available for people to review and comment on.

Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with their care in the national GP patient survey. For example, 86% of people who responded to the survey told us the healthcare professional was good at listening to them. 89% of people who responded to the survey told us they were as much involved as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. The responses were above the national averages for patient satisfaction.

Some people told us they could contact the practice by telephone or via their website, whilst other experienced challenges when calling from a withheld number or via the hospital telephone system. Their patient satisfaction rates were below the local and national averages recorded within the national GP patient survey 2024. For example, 33% of respondents to the survey stated they were able to contact the service easily on the telephone and 35% found their website easy to use. The provider assured us they were check patient pathways into the practice and support equity of access.

There were established and effective systems in place to ensure equity of access where people contacted the practice in person as opposed to via their online clinical system. We observed the process and saw people were assessed or their enquiries responded to in a timely manner. The provider actively oversaw patient demand for services and clinical risks.

Staff ensured people had suitable appointments, regarding their duration, the environment and the staff members skills and competencies to meet their needs.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. People who may be approaching the end of their life were identified (including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable). This information was shared with other services and staff. People’s decisions and what mattered to them were delivered through personalised care plans that were shared with others who may need to be informed. When people wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wished. When any treatment was changed or withdrawn, professionals communicated and managed this openly and sensitively so that people had a comfortable and dignified death. When people’s future care preferences were for greater independence and fewer care interventions that were likely to benefit them, professionals worked together to support them to achieve their goals.