Abbey Medical 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.

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. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The national GP patient survey results for the practice showed that the practice exceeded local and national averages in almost all areas

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good

This service scored 82 (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.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs.

The practice was using the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback on their experiences of the practice. The recent results showed that the majority of the respondents reported they were ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to recommend the practice to others.

78% of people who responded felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment

We saw that the practice ran an initiative with the primary care network (PCN) to improve cervical screening access for unrepresented groups. They offered culturally sensitive workshops and flexible clinic hours to make it more accessible and inclusive for patients. As a result, 100% attendees reported increased awareness and confidence to attend cervical screening.

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, in partnership with the PCN the practice created a standardised treatment room service across the 3 practices, improving both patient care and staff experience. The project helped overcome recruitment challenges, building resilience and capacity and ensuring a consistent patient experience across the network.

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. We noted that the practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The latest patient survey results indicated that 91% patients who responded knew what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice. This was above the national (83%) and local (84%) averages.

The service enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were involved in decisions about their care and were told changed as a result.

We saw that the practice has only received 3 complaints in the last 12 months, and they were all 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.

The recent patient survey results indicated that 79%patients who responded described their overall experience of this GP practice as good. This was above the national (75%) and local (76%) averages.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

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, improvements were made to the telephony system based on patient feedback that led to missed calls being reduced from 60% to 10%.

Feedback from the patient participation group confirmed that their recommendations were implemented including installing a doorbell at the entrance to improve access for patients with mobility issues.

We noted that the attendances for the practice to the accident and emergency were much lower than the local ICB and national averages.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example, the practice had capacity for directly bookable NHS 111 appointments, ensuring that patients with urgent needs were seen on the same day where clinically appropriate.
 

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.

We saw evidence that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register and vulnerable patients. There were a number of internal meetings held to discuss referrals, workflows, tasks or any outstanding issues that needed attention.

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.

We saw evidence that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register and vulnerable patients. There were a number of internal meetings held to discuss referrals, workflows, tasks or any outstanding issues that needed attention.