Hartshill 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 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 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 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 79% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment. The practice listened to patient feedback and used it to identify areas for improvement and, made appropriate changes to enhance the quality of care provided.

Non‑digital routes for accessing services were available for people who were digitally excluded or who had additional communication support needs. These included telephone access with the option to speak to a member of staff, paper forms available at reception, and support to complete online forms.

The practice-maintained equality and diversity policies with staff in receipt of appropriate training.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. The provider had undertaken engagement with the local traveller community to support Warwickshire Police and the council regarding an urgent welfare situation as they were living without power going into winter, this support included educating them on how to register, access the surgery and what to do in an emergency and identifying vulnerable individuals. Since this engagement, the provider has seen increased number of travellers attending appointments which has supported to reduce health inequalities in the area as the community has an increased trust in NHS services.

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.

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. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

According to the National GP Patient Survey data, 72% of patients responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice, which was slightly below the National Average of 75%. The GP Patient Survey further showed that 53% of patients found it easy to contact the practice by phone, which was in line with the national average.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, a call back system on the telephony system, the use of pharmacy first and online communication, the provider had also increased clinical staff hours and upskilled reception staff to triage effectively.

The provider was in the process of obtaining digital champions to set up workshops to support and educate the digitally excluded population in using online systems to gain access to provider.

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 Friends and Family Test (FFT) results were positive with compliments to staff and regarding the ease of access to the service.

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.