The Blundellsands 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

The service provided person centred care and treatment whereby people’s individual needs and wishes were respected and acted upon. Information was offered in a way that could be understood and people were able to discuss things and receive information in their preferred language.

Staff worked to reduce health and care inequalities and achieved well for all indicators around access when benchmarked against other local practices. Continuity of care was offered to patients where required or when requested and longer appointments were available if necessary. The practice worked within the primary care network (PCN) and supported local service developments as part of this.

Information about how to raise a complaint was provided and the sample of complaints we looked at had been investigated, although not always thoroughly documented. Learning from complaints was shared effectively across the staff team.

The premises were purpose built and reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure the premises were accessible to patients who required disabled access.

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 was good at ensuring 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. Feedback from people who used the service was that they were well supported to understand their condition and felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment and in planning for their future needs. Feedback from the NHS Friends and Family Test was positive, with 84% of people who responded saying they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help them manage their long term conditions which significantly exceeded local and national averages of 69% and 68% respectively. Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan patient care and treatment so that people’s needs could be met holistically. Staff demonstrated a person centred approach to their work and we observed staff who were supportive of patients during our assessment. 95% of people who responded to the National GP patient survey said they found the reception and administration team helpful, which was higher than local averages of 84% and national average of 83%.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The clinical staff team was consistently improving following a period of instability and were able to provide continuity of care. Staff told us that, where appropriate, patients were able to request and see the same healthcare professional. This was supported by the National GP Patient Survey results, in which 65% of respondents confirmed this was their experience, significantly higher than the local and national averages of 40%. Staff worked with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. All staff we spoke with were familiar with the patients who attended the practice. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people. The practice had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community and were able to demonstrate how they encouraged patients to attend for follow up appointments, screening programmes and child immunisation uptake. The provider worked closely with the primary care network (PCN) to plan, develop and deliver services across the locality.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. People received information about their health and treatment options to enable them to make an informed decision. We also saw information presented to people in the language of their choice when required. The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services. Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating. Feedback from people who responded to the National GP Patient survey showed that 94%knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting their GP practice, which was higher than the local and National averages. The practice had access to interpreter services to support people who did not use English as their first language and staff could make information available in the language of patient choice. The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use but did not have a language toggle for other languages.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns, complaints or issues. We saw feedback from the NHS Friends and Family Test which was mostly positive and also via complaints which were reviewed. People were encouraged to write in to the practice if they wished to complain about their care, treatment and support, and complaints were responded to appropriately with a full response and an apology. 98% of patients who responded to the National GP patient survey stated that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. Reception staff told us how they dealt with people’s concerns on a daily basis and addressed concerns before they escalated. Verbal feedback was also documented but the practice did not always document outcomes and learning from this. We discussed these missed opportunities during the assessment with staff and leaders who were receptive to our feedback. People responded positively to the National GP patient survey that the healthcare professionals who saw them were good at listening to them and involving them in decisions about their care and treatment and the number of positive responses exceeded local and national averages.

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the accessible information standards. The patient record system was used to alert staff to any particular communication needs of the patient so that staff could then communicate effectively with the patient. Information could be made available in alternative languages and formats including easy read materials. Longer appointments were booked for patients who required the services of an interpreter and for those with a learning disability or complex long term conditions. The provider tried to ensure that people could access the service easily and quickly so that they got the support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People we spoke to who used the service did not have any concerns about access. Staff said that most patients who requested it could see a GP on the day of request or were signposted to a more appropriate person or service to meet their needs that day. An on-call GP was available to see people for urgent appointment requests. Staff were trained to direct people to the most appropriate clinician or service to meet their needs. The provider monitored patient access effectively and made changes in response so as to ensure patient satisfaction.

The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice was more than 10% higher than local and national averages at 89% and 54% of respondents said they were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make an appointment.

67% said they found it easy to get through to the practice by phone and 67% found it easy to contact the practice using the website or the NHS App. The local and national averages for these were between 45% and 50% for all.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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 mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination and understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care which was adjusted to support people’s individualities. There were processes to ensure people could register at the practice, and people in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers were treated equally. 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 provider monitored data about the care and treatment provided to patients. Available data showed that people experienced better outcomes for care and treatment when compared to services locally and nationally.

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and supported to plan for these. 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 as necessary. Multi-disciplinary meetings were held on a regular basis to discuss the needs of people receiving end of life care.