Mayflower 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 rated the key question of responsive as good.

The service mostly 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. They worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. They supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. The service made sure that people could mostly access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Oversight of advance care planning systems, end-of-life care and DNACPR decisions and systems was not always in place to be assured of the quality of DNACPR decisions.

This service scored 71 (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 mostly 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 the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were mostly supported in understanding their condition and engaged in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

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, building relationships with community groups such as Changing Lives; a community hub that provided a base for a wide range of services aimed at supporting clients and their children in the community. The provider told us there had been a significant increase in local community engagements.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, displayed within the practice was an area specifically focussed on learning disabilities. On this display was a scannable QR code that provided access to easy-to-read texts and videos explaining certain procedures. In addition to this paper copies of easy-read documents for common procedures such as cervical screening, annual health checks, and blood tests were available. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of formats. The practice had access to interpreter services. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People could provide feedback and complain online, by email, letter or verbally. People were also encouraged to give feedback online, through the NHS Friends and Family Test. The practice’s complaints procedure leaflet was available on the practice’s website and onsite. The service surveyed patients regularly with approximately 200/300 surveys issued each month. Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. The patient experience manager had received training from the local commissioner on managing complaints. The practice had an active Patient Participation Group. Feedback received about their engagement with the practice was positive.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. As a new provider at Mayflower Medical Practice, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. They showed us they were continually monitoring this. These included but were not limited to a new telephone system, introducing pre-bookable/in advance appointments, offering enhanced access clinics on a Saturday morning, increasing the number of acute appointments per day with the choice of telephone or face-to-face and direct access to the practice pharmacist for medication-related issues.

We looked at the appointment booking system and found patients could access the next available appointment in a timely way. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The feedback we saw from patients was mostly positive about access.

Data from the 2024 GP Patient Survey showed the practice performed below the local and national averages for the percentage of people who find it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone (46%); using their website (31%); and using the NHS App (35%). 68% described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good. This was equal to local and national averages. The provider showed us telephone answering data. Apart from several occasions, the record showed telephones were responded to within the practice target of 3 minutes.

We received some concerns regarding the number of staff available to deal with the reception area both in terms of answering the phones and patients queuing at the front desk, delay in prescription medication being available at the dispensary, inability to access the Saturday morning appointments, and the 8am rush to make an appointment.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service to the provider was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice. The provider told us no patient registration had been refused.

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.

The DNACPR Policy updated 20.12.24 was not practice-specific and did not give any specific detail about what the practice does concerning DNACPR management.