Netherley Health 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 assessed all quality statements under this key question. This is the first rated assessment of this service since the provider took over the contract. We rated this key question as requires improvement.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to their work. The culture and ethos of the provider was to provide a good quality service and high level of patient satisfaction. However, the practice received lower than average patient satisfaction scores in the national GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 75% of respondents (compared to 85% nationally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 60% (compared to 74% nationally) said the healthcare professional they saw was good at considering their mental wellbeing and 47% (compared to 75% nationally) described their overall experience of the practice as good.

Feedback from people who used the service as shared in the NHS Friends and Family test showed a higher level of satisfaction with many examples shared of how staff had taken the time to make sure people’s needs were met holistically and people were mostly complementary about staff in all roles.

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.

We saw many examples of positive patient feedback regarding patient centred care when care and treatment had been received. Patient dissatisfaction was largely linked to accessing the service and securing an appointment.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

Staff worked with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. 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, for example, working hard to promote the take up of screening programmes.

The provider told us they worked 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 were provided with information about their health and treatment options to enable them to make an informed decision.

Support was available for people with additional needs or communication needs. For example, people who required the services of an interpreter or people who had a learning disability.

The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services.

Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

The service was good at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. 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.

Complaints were investigated appropriately, and complainants were provided with a full response including an apology where this was appropriate and details for referring to a second stage of the complaints process. Feedback from people who used the service was reviewed and used to support service improvement and learning from complaints was shared effectively.

Whilst the provider acted upon feedback from people and made improvements to the service in response, feedback about access remained largely negative. Actions taken to improve patient experience with regards to access were not always resulting in improved outcomes. The provider had an action plan in place to address this.

People who used the service provided a level of negative feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. People did not always feel able to access the service readily. The practice received significantly lower than average scores for patient satisfaction in the national GP Patient Survey for satisfaction relating to experience of contacting the practice. The percentage of respondents who responded positively to their experience of contacting the practice was lower than average at 39% (compared to 69% nationally) and 46% of respondents (compared to 67% nationally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. Patient satisfaction for finding it easy to get through to the practice by phone was lower than average at 25% (compared to 52% nationally). The provider shared an action plan with us demonstrating the actions taken or planned to improve patient satisfaction in response to patient feedback including the national GP Patient Survey.

Feedback provided directly to CQC through ‘give feedback on care’ was largely negative regarding access to the service and experience of contacting the practice.

The provider had introduced improvements to support a more efficient access model including the use of online services and the provider told us they had seen a decrease in calls for appointments, and an increase in online usage.

Staff were trained to direct people to the most appropriate clinician or service to meet their needs.

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the accessible information standards, and 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.

The premises were purpose built and fully accessible. However, we noted that there was no designated parking, including parking for disabled people.

Leaders were able to recognise patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they sought ways to address barriers. Leaders reviewed demographic and health data regularly to identify inequalities and target improvement actions.

The service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. People who used the service had equal opportunities to access reviews of their care, treatment and medicines.

The provider had processes to ensure all people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the local patient population, and the difficulties people may encounter. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

The results of the national GP Patient Survey showed that 76%of respondents (compared to 90% nationally) felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. A higher than average percentage of respondents (96%)knew what the next step would be within 2 days of contacting the practice (93% nationally).

The provider was able to give numerous examples of the systems they had in place to promote equity in outcomes including: maintaining and proactively reviewing vulnerable patient registers, the provision of longer or tailored appointments for people with a learning disability and autistic people, the use of language interpretation services, easy read materials, ensuring reasonable adjustments to the environment (accessible rooms, quiet waiting area, hearing loop, neurodiversity packs) and the use of social prescribing and care coordination to support wider needs (housing, finance, isolation, mental health).

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and were supported to plan for these.

Our review of the patient record system 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.