Croft Hall Medical Practice

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 have rated the practice as Requires improvement for providing responsive services because.

Improvements were needed to make sure that a range of appointments were available to meet people’s needs and continuity of care was promoted.

There were shortfalls in complaints handling and investigations of concerns did not always address all areas of concern raised. People were not consistently provided with an apology when things went wrong. Learning form complaints was not effectively shared and used to improve service provision.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care needs were not always followed up in a timely manner. Our review of people’s records showed there were delays in following up on information received from external service providers, arranging blood tests and medication reviews.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The practice was situated in an area of high deprivation and staff did not feel leaders were fully aware of the diverse needs of the population.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed on how to access their care records.

Not all relevant staff had received training on information governance as required by the provider’s policy. Some significant events that were shared with us were about data breaches. There was no evidence of investigations or learning from these events.

The system for complaints was centralised and complainants were given different emails to send in their concerns.

Responses to complaints indicated where action would be taken, but there was not supporting evidence to indicate that this had been done.

Complainants were not routinely kept informed of delays in responding to concerns. We found examples where the 40-60 days to respond had not been met and the complainant had not been informed.

Complaints and significant events had been categorised to identify trends and themes; but this information had not been used to continually evaluate and improve performance when needed. These included incidents related to data breaches, from the evidence provided it was not clear how actions were monitored and whether duty of candour had been followed.

Responses to complaints was incomplete and did not consistently address the issues the complainant had raised. There was no indication in complaint responses whether the complaint was upheld or not. This meant that the provider could not be assured that concerns had been addressed fully and actions would be taken to prevent reoccurrence.

Information from the nation GP patient survey showed:

• 59.8% of people responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone against the expected outcome of 49.7%
• 69.2% of people responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice against the expected outcome of 67.3%

A range of appointments were offered, but people were not always able to access care and treatment in a timely manner. Information from complaints showed delays had led to people accessing other services as they were unable to get an appointment within a reasonable time frame to meet their needs.

The service provided a business continuity plan, which included an emergency protocol. While robust and informative it lacked the service’s duty to inform the Care Quality Commission (CQC) if the building becomes unsafe or uninhabitable. The service relied heavily on locum clinicians and had few doctors and nurses employed. There was no evidence to show the service had requested feedback from its service users to gain a better understanding of their access needs.

The practice had access to interpreting services and there was a mobile telephone which could be used by people who were deaf to communicate with the practice. Improvements were needed to ensure there was a full understanding of patient demographics and the service was provided in a way which met the populations needs. Practice staff who knew the patient population were not routinely consulted on how services could be developed and improved.

People were not always 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.