Ilford Lane 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

We looked for evidence the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Only 39% of patients reported it was easy to get through by phone on the National GP Patient Survey, below the national average of 57% and the local average of 55%. This was an improvement from 22% the previous year, however, access remained substantially below comparable services. The phone system operated in three windows, with eConsultations only available between 8 and 9am, a dedicated appointments line between 9 and 10am, and general enquiries from 10am. Patients also reported difficulty securing an appointment at all, or with their preferred doctor. The practice attributed this to limited consulting room capacity, which meant some clinicians worked by phone or eConsultation rather than face-to-face. To fill the gap, they submitted a practice-funded application to convert part of an oversized waiting area into temporary consulting rooms was in progress not complete at the time of our assessment.

Some routes existed to overcome access barriers, for example walk-in appointments were treated the same as phone or online bookings, booking by carers and family members was welcomed, and reception supported the completion of eConsultation forms. A Pharmacy First referral scheme diverted minor ailments when appointments were unavailable. No staff interviewed identified a specific patient group disadvantaged in accessing services.

An equality and diversity policy, an accessible information standard policy, and a managing access and patient demand policy were in place with annual review dates. Physical premises accessibility was addressed under Safe Environments.

However, the National GP Patient Survey demonstrates that people were not always able to contact the practice or secure an appointment when they needed one. The latest Friends and Family Test also recognised that difficulty booking with a preferred clinician was the main area for improvement. The practice had developed a comprehensive action plan in response, however, it was too early to evidence any improvement for people using the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Overall patient experience genuinely improved, from 45% the previous year to 59% this year on the National GP Patient Survey measure of overall good or very good experience. However, this remained below the national average of 77% and the Integrated Care System average of 71%. Involvement in care decisions followed a similar pattern, at 76% against a national average of 92%. Contributing factors identified included standard ten-minute GP appointments being insufficient for patients with multiple long-term conditions, and redirection to primary care network staff, for example physiotherapists, a paramedics andpodiatrists, where patients were not always familiar with these roles or willing to accept the alternative even when clinically more appropriate.

No staff identified a specific patient group experiencing worse outcomes or care. One clear example of individually tailored care was identified - a deaf patient had been given the practice email address as an alternative route to book appointments.

Complaints were acknowledged within three working days, investigated, and discussed at monthly practice meetings, with process changes made where a complaint identified a systemic issue. An equality and diversity policy was in place and logged with an annual review date, and the practice manager reviewed national survey results directly against other local practices to identify where scores were stronger elsewhere.

The practice served a population in the third most deprived decile nationally on the Index of Multiple Deprivation. This made it important to understand whether complaints and survey results differed between patient groups. Although this analysis had not yet been completed, the practice recognised its importance, had already taken steps to begin the work and provided evidence of this after the assessment.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.