Broad Street 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.

The practice serves a large, diverse, and evolving patient population with a significant patient churn and complex social needs.

We found that people were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. 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.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

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 monitored digital services and offered alternative appointments and support to patients who might be digitally excluded. For example, the care navigation team had protocols for escalating complex cases, where digital care might not be appropriate, to the duty doctor or to the clinical lead at the practice.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with PCN to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, there was a standardised treatment room service offered across the PCN to ensure consistent care and patient experience for treatments such as wound care, dressings, vaccinations or blood pressure monitoring.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were 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 practice met the Accessible Information Standard.

The reception display included ‘You said we did’ messaging that showed how patient feedback had led to changes or improvements.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, due to patient feedback, the practice introduced and offered a self-booking system for blood test appointments improving patient autonomy and reduced wait times and easing pressure on reception staff.

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

In collaboration with the PCN the practice offered extended access over the weekends and alternate Saturdays.

The practice had recently replicated the national GP patient survey and developed an internal survey to capture patient feedback. The results from the internal survey indicated that practice performed above average across most of questions reflecting strong patient satisfaction.

During the onsite inspection, we spoke with 2 patients who told us that the practice was responsive to their needs, and they found it easy to access the practice and book appointments.

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 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.

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.

We reviewed the Friends and Family test (FFT) data from the last three months and found there were number of positive reviews highlighting the quality of care patients had received. (FFT is a national initiative and is a quick and anonymous way for patients to provide feedback on the care or treatment they receive from NHS services). For example, some patient feedback highlighted the professionalism of the staff, describing them as polite, efficient, and supportive. Patients reported a seamless experience while contacting the practice and valued the timely provision of information and swift response to their needs.

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.

The practice held registers for a number of different patient groups, this included people with learning disabilities, experiencing mental health related conditions and also those receiving end-of-life care. These were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure patients were appropriately supported.