Essex Way 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that 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 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 people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Clinical staff told us during consultations they discussed relevant information, listened to people’s concerns and expectations, identified people’s needs and preferences and agreed a plan of care together which suited the person. They involved family members and carers as appropriate.

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 service worked in partnership with other organisations to meet people’s needs. They had tailored their service 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 service was an Armed Forces veteran friendly, accredited GP practice. Staff identified veterans at registration and documented this in people’s clinical record at any time upon notification.

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 service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed how to access their care records.

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 feedback, including complaints.

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

The provider offered a range of ways for people to access appointments, including by telephone and in person, with an example of online email adjustments made for people who were not comfortable calling or coming in to book an appointment in person. Staff explained that people who were unable to use online services could access care by telephone or in person which was the preferred method by most of the service population demographic. Appointments were available to be booked in advance, and the service provided urgent and same-day appointments alongside routine appointments. The provider also offered extended access, including evening and weekend appointments, to improve access for people who could not attend during routine hours.

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, the service considered individual circumstances when arranging appointments. Staff could offer longer appointments where required and made reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs. This included providing access to interpretation and language support, and considering the need for additional support when arranging appointments.

The provider had taken steps to make the premises accessible. We saw automatic doors and a low-level access button at the entrance, a low-level reception window and ramped access. Consultation and treatment facilities were available on the ground floor. A designated area for prams and mobility scooters was also available.

The service used flexible staffing arrangements to respond to demand and staff absences. Reception staff could escalate urgent concerns to clinicians, and staff descried processes for prioritising appointments according to clinical need. This included directing people to an appropriate clinician or service where required.

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 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.

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 service-maintained oversight of people at the end of their life. Monthly multidisciplinary (MDT) team meetings were held where people were discussed and reviewed. People’s care records were updated as appropriate. The service had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) procedure which was reviewed and kept up to date. During our visit we saw clear records and care plans to demonstrate the oversight the service maintained to ensure people’s care plans were reviewed.