Prenton 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 assessed all quality statements under this key question. This was the first rated assessment of this service since the provider took over the contract. We rated this key question as good.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive with regards to the responsiveness of the service and their ability to access the service easily. The majority of people had their initial consultation needs met on the day of request with a small proportion of patients booked into routine appointments where this was more appropriate to meet their needs. Staff were trained to direct people to the most appropriate clinician or service to meet their needs. The provider monitored patient access effectively and made changes in response to ensure patient satisfaction.

This service scored 79 (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 ensured that 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. Feedback from people who used the service was that they were well supported to understand their condition and involved in decisions about their care and treatment and in planning for their future needs.

Regular multi-disciplinary team meetings were held to discuss and plan patient care and treatment so that people’s needs could be met holistically.

Staff demonstrated a very person-centred approach to their work. The culture and ethos of the service was to ensure a high level of patient satisfaction, and this was clearly evident across all areas of our assessment.

The practice received good patient satisfaction scores in the GP national patient survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 91% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 79% (compared to 79% nationally) said the healthcare professional they saw was good at considering their mental wellbeing and 85% (compared to 75% nationally) described their overall experience of the practice as good.

People who used the service shared examples of how staff had taken the time to listen to their needs and people were highly complementary about staff in all roles. Representatives from the PPG provided very positive feedback about the service that was in line with all other forms of feedback from people who used the service.

The provider told us about how they supported the needs of patients for example, those who were carers or those who had a learning disability. The service had provided a 10-week support group for people who have ADHD that included informative sessions provided by outside agencies. The group was a mix of people living with ADHD or awaiting diagnosis and carers.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The clinical staff team was stable and this provided a high level of consistency for people who used the service. Staff told us where necessary, people benefitted from seeing the same healthcare professional.

Staff worked with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example, working hard to promote the take up of cancer screening programmes.

The provider worked closely with the PCN to plan, develop and deliver services across the locality.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. People were provided with information about their health and treatment options to enable them to make an informed decision.

Support was available for people with additional needs or communication needs. For example, people who required the services of an interpreter or patients who had a learning disability.

The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services.

Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

Feedback from people who used the service in the National GP Patient survey showed that 89%of respondents (compared to 92% nationally) felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment.

The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

The service was good at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Patients responded positively in the National GP patient survey for questions related to the healthcare professional being good or very good at listening to them and involving them in decisions about their care and treatment.

The provider monitored patient views via the NHS Friends and Family Test. Feedback shared with CQC directly by people who used the service was very positive with regards to feeling listened to and involved in decisions.

During the assessment we met with members of the PPG and the feedback we received was highly positive. We were told that relationships between the group and the practice were very good. Members of the PPG felt listened to and consulted with.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns, complaints or issues. Complaints were investigated appropriately and complainants were provided with a full response including an apology where this was appropriate. We noted that complaint outcome letters did not always include the details for the second stage of the complaints process. The manager told us this was provided in leaflet form. Action was taken to include this information in outcome letters.

The provider made sure that people could access the service easily and quickly so that they got the support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The majority of people had their initial consultation needs met on the day of request with a small proportion of patients booked into routine appointments where this was more appropriate to meet their needs or if more convenient for the patient. Clinicians were available to see people for all types of appointment requests including urgent appointments. The provider monitored patient access effectively and made changes in response to ensure patient satisfaction.

People who used the service provided highly positive feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice was at 82% (compared to 70% nationally) and 86%of respondents (compared to 67% nationally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. Patient satisfaction for finding it easy to get through to the practice by phone was 77% (compared to 52% nationally).

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the accessible information standard and the patient record system was used to alert staff to any specific communication needs of the patient so that staff could then communicate effectively with the patient.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff and leaders ensured they were able to recognise patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they tailored the service to meet their care, support and treatment needs in response to this.

The provider had processes to ensure all people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the local patient population, and the difficulties people may encounter. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

The provider monitored data about the care and treatment provided to patients. Available data showed that people experienced similar to or better outcomes for care and treatment when compared to services locally and nationally. The results of the National GP patient survey showed that 90%of respondents (compared to 90% nationally) felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment and 84%responded positively about their overall experience of the practice (compared to 75% nationally).

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and supported to plan for these.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A review of these processes was required by the provider to ensure all records were maintained and shared appropriately. Multi-disciplinary team meetings were held on a regular basis to discuss the needs of people receiving end of life care.