Stirling Road 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

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

There was a range of appointments available, but people experienced issues with accessing the service.

The practice used data on appointment types and calls to the practice, to review and improve the service it offered.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to responding to people’s needs and making sure they were involved in their care and treatment. Improvements were needed in managing complaints to ensure themes and trends were identified, learning was shared; and patients were fully involved in the process.

This service scored 54 (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 .

Results from the Family and Friends test showed improved feedback since the provider started to run the service. In April 2024 51.85% (135 respondents), would recommend the practice to others. In December 2024 this had risen to 69.14% (243 respondents).

Care needs were not always followed up in a timely manner. Our review of patient 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. Staff said there was a reliance on online or text based interactions with patients and said this could be an issue as a high proportion of patients did not always have access to equipment to receive or send information in this way.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats 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. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Complaints were not always managed effectively. Themes and trends from complaints were not identified and information was not used to improve service provision. For example, data breaches had no information to show they had been escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office if needed, or record of the action taken to prevent reoccurrence. Complaint responses contained medical words, with no information to explain what these terms meant. Patients were not offered the option to discuss the outcome of their complaint; and not all complaints had a letter with the outcome sent to the complainant.

Learning from complaints was identified, but it was not clear how actions were put into practice and shared with the wider staff teams. There was a log of complaints in place, however this not effective, as it did not stop some shortfalls.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patients who left NHS reviews said there were delays in responses to consultation requests online, which resulted in the need to attend A&E or contact NHS 111 services . There were some positive comments where patients considered their requests had been responded to in a timely manner. Published information from the national GP survey related to the period prior to the provider taking over the service. Peoples’ accessibility or support needs were highlighted on their records, so staff were able to meet their needs. For example, providing information in Braille or needing to use a hearing loop. Ramps and lifts were available for people with mobility needs. The practice had access to translation services. If needed a patient could bring a relative or friend to support them in appointments , but not as a translator. Carers were offered an assessment to identify any unmet needs and to signpost them to relevant services for support. Staff told us when possible, seriously ill people could be added to the duty GP list . Home visits were available for those people who needed them. However, we noted that one house bound patient had not had blood tests carried out for their review. All sites had a range of appointments available for the two weeks after our assessment. However, clinical staff had limited time for clinical and administration tasks as their sessions were fully booked. Staff reported at times it was not easy to book routine appointments. Staff had mixed views on the availability of same day appointments. There were times when the online consultation service was closed in the morning and same day appointments had been filled early in the morning.

Leaders said that as well as pre-bookable appointments other appointments were released in the morning and afternoon. We requested information on the dates and times that online access was closed and when appointments were no longer available; this was not provided. New rotas were due to be implemented in January 2025 which was intended to increase appointment availability. Patients said recently it had been easier to contact the practice and there was now a callback service on the telephone. This avoided the need to wait for a call to be answered.

Improvements were needed to ensure there was a full understanding of patient demographics and the service was provided in a way which met those needs. Practice staff who knew the patient population were not routinely consulted on how services could be developed and improved to meet people’s needs . The practice had an online patient participation group and were planning meetings in the New Year to learn more about the practice population’s needs.

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. 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. However, we received concerns from external providers that requests for care and treatment were not always actioned in a timely manner.