Blake House 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 assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question. At our last assessment we did not inspect this key question. At this inspection we rated this key question as good.

We found evidence that the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. People were involved in decisions about their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. The service provided information in a format people could understand. People knew how to give feedback. People received fair and equal care and treatment.

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 people, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. For example, people’s care records indicated if they had a visual impairment. This indicated to staff reviewing their appointment request they may require additional support to attend. We saw evidence the service offered reasonable adjustments and took individual preferences into consideration. For example, offering access to interpreter services and information was available in a variety of formats such as, braille, or large print. This helped people understand their care, treatment and conditions.

Staff felt they got to know people’s needs during appointments and they responded appropriately. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning to meet their care needs. The service worked in partnership with people to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service had a multidisciplinary team to manage the diverse people’s needs. It worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. There were established links with the local community healthcare provider such as with district nurses which enabled joined-up care provision.

The service utilised a central register of people living in vulnerable circumstances including those with learning disabilities. This register was maintained by the service.

The service checked referrals to external services were received and actioned in a timely way.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Interpretation services could be accessed to support people who did not have English as a first language. However, some staff we spoke to were not familiar with this process.

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

The service supported people and their carers when needed to find further information; and to access community and advocacy services. Staff asked people and carers about their communication preferences. Staff then made contact with people using their preferred method(s) of communication.

The service’s website contained information to support and educate people, this included a ‘Heath A-Z’ and a ‘Health Advice’ section, which covered areas such as family health, long-term conditions and patient advice. The website could change language easily for users which also included an accessibility menu. This enabled website visitors to adjust the service’s site to cater to their individual needs.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service involved people in decisions about their care. The service had a system which enabled people to provide feedback and ideas or raised concerns about their care and treatment. There was a system to log complaints and audit action taken. However, this log contained errors which were not corrected, such as incorrect dates and updates of outcomes.

Staff told us learning from complaints was shared during meetings.

The service used NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and suggestion boxes which allowed them to collect feedback from their people. FFT is a national initiative and is a quick and anonymous way for people to provide feedback on the care or treatment they receive from NHS services. This was collated and recorded by the service, however, it did not record actions or outcomes.

People were provided with a complaints leaflet upon raising concerns with the service. This leaflet advises people of the process and the timeline of actions to expect. It also advises of the escalation process if the complainant is not happy with the outcome.

The service had an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. Members of the group were free to raise agenda items and ask questions during PPG meetings.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They offered extended appointments for people with a learning disability or those requiring language interpretation services.

In response to the 2024 National GP Patient Survey data showed 81% responded positively with how easy it was to contact their GP service on the phone. This is compared to the national average of 53%. People who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP service was 78%, with a national average of 70%. This evidence showed the service was performing above national average.

People could access the service to suit their needs, for example, online, in person and by telephone. They could access health and medication information online as well as requesting or cancelling appointments, ordering repeat medications, registering as a new patient or obtaining test results or requesting sick notes.

Some treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp to the entrance. People were able to request an appointment with a specific clinician and this was usually at a time most suitable for them.

We reviewed the service’s appointment system and found there was a 4 week wait for a face to face appointment and a 2 day wait for telephone consultations for routine needs. Urgent same day appointments were available on the day of assessment.

Some staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequity in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. However, not all staff had completed training in learning disability and autism to support these people. Training in learning disability and autism is crucial in primary care because it ensure that healthcare providers have the necessary skills and knowledge to provide safe, compassionate, and informed care to individuals.

Care and treatment were tailored, when possible, to meet the needs of people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s access. This included an online triage form to support the demand for appointments which ensured appointments were available to those who needed them. Adjustments were made when needed to promote equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

The service had processes to ensure people could register, including those in vulnerable circumstances. 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 (CPR). This information was shared with other services when necessary. We reviewed 5 records where there was a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision documented and found all were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act.