Lindley Group 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 patient’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Patients were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information in a manner people could easily understand. Patients had access to appointments, based on clinical need, and vulnerable people or those with protected characteristics were able to access care and treatment in ways that met their personal circumstances. The National GP Patient Survey outcomes were below average for some outcomes in relation to access. The practice took complaints and other patient feedback seriously and learnt from them to improve the quality of care.

This service scored 64 (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 patients 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. Discussion with leaders showed that they understood the needs of their local population and demonstrated a good understanding of the practice’s demographics, challenges they faced and systems in place which placed patients at the centre of care.

Referral systems ensured patients received consistent, coordinated care when they moved between services. Staff told us that they involved patients in their care and treatment. They told us they did this by having discussions, offering choice, and by providing patients with the support they needed to understand, for example by offering support with any communication needs. Where individuals lacked capacity, relatives and advocates were included in decision-making discussions.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure patient’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The practice held registers of different patient groups, including those with a learning disability and carers. The practice registered patients with no fixed abode by using the practice as their address.

The practice was aligned to 2 care homes and provided a weekly GP telephone ward round, coordinated between the practice and the homes. Feedback was relatively positive about their relationship with the practice.

The practice provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual patient needs. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard and staff had undertaken training. Patients could request information in more accessible ways, such as in large print and individual communication needs were noted on a patient’s clinical record. The practice website had the functionality to translate to other languages and included up-to-date information about opening times, out of hours information, patient registration, clinics and services, health information and support. Reasonable adjustments were made at the practice to support communication and interpreter services, including British Sign Language (BSL), were available for those who did not speak English as a first language.

Staff told us the different ways that patients could share feedback and ideas and raise complaints. This included the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), the complaints process and through compliments. Staff we spoke with understood the complaints process and how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they may have. We saw staff had undertaken complaints management training.

There was an effective complaints process in place which included a lead and policy. We reviewed complaint records and saw complaints were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and learning shared. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). We discussed with the practice manager capturing all verbal complaints and the role and benefit of trend analysis from any verbal complaints.

The practice had systems in place to enable patients to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Appointment types included telephone and face-to-face. The practice offered home visits and urgent appointments for patients where appropriate. The practice utilised the Kirklees Urgent Community Response (UCR) service for those patients falling within its criteria.

Patient feedback from the recent National GP Patient Survey in relation to access was below national averages for some indicators. We found 38% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice by phone (national average 53%), 65% responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice (national average 70%), 47% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using their website (national average 51%) and 34% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using the NHS App (national average 49%).

The practice was aware that patient outcomes for access were below national averages. The practice was monitoring this through their daily care navigation and duty doctor system. The practice had funded some additional communications software to facilitate prompt communication with their patients via email and text messaging.

During our assessment, we looked at how the practice adapted and provided care to people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, which included people with a learning disability. In particular, we looked at how the service ensured that care, support and treatment met the needs and preferences of these individuals.

The practice held a learning disability register and told us they had engaged with Kirklees Adult Learning Disability Health Service to review the register to ensure that those on the register had been included appropriately. We reviewed current performance dashboard data provided by the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and found the percentage of patients who had a completed learning disability health check in the last 12 months was 74%.

We reviewed practice training records and found gaps in documentation to demonstrate that staff had completed learning disabilities and autism training at a level relevant to their role. At the time of our assessment the practice was discussing how they were going to access face-to-face and interactive training sessions, co-produced and co-delivered by people with a learning disability and autistic people, in line with recent updated guidance.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. Decisions and choices made by people were documented and reviewed as required. Patients at end of life were reviewed in multi-disciplinary team meetings. Patient’s decisions and what mattered to them were delivered through personalised care plans that were shared with others who may need to be informed.

We reviewed 4 patient records and found in 2 of the records a ReSPECT care plan had been used and recorded by the practice with the patients’ wishes regarding care and resuscitation and these were stored in the clinical records. In the other 2 records, we found that DNACPR decisions had been made in other health settings, and coded in the clinical records, but no documentation was available in the notes. At the time of our assessment, the practice did not have a system in place to review and follow-up on any decisions made in secondary care or the community setting to ensure appropriate documentation was available.