Minehead 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. This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good. People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback. 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.

This service scored 68 (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. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs.

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 where possible, 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 and there were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Resources in the waiting room contained information in alternative formats including easy-read leaflets and pictures. The service was in the process of sourcing leaflets in Braille to support people with visual impairments. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. People were informed as to how to access their care records. The service had a carer’s champion who was in the process of coordinating an event in the community for people to attend. This event was going to be attended by a variety of health organisations to promote healthier lives for example, services to support with smoking cessation, dementia, alcohol dependency and being a carer.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw complaints were managed in line with policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. One person told us ‘[I] was super impressed that I got a same day appointment and the doctor I saw was friendly, helpful and efficient. I felt as though [they] listened and gave me the best care’.

The service tried to make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, this was challenging due to the struggle to recruit permanent GPs. Staff at the practice acknowledged that some people who used the service found access difficult. In response to feedback from members of the community and partner organisations, the service had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability and were planning to implement a new triage process for general appointment requests. People could contact the service in a way that suited their needs, for example, online, in person and by telephone. We received mixed feedback from people’s experience of access, 78% of the contacts we received mentioned poor access. For example, someone told us ‘There are unacceptable wait times for all clinicians including GPs. Waiting over a month or longer for an appointment both face to face or on the telephone does little for the anxiety levels of those seeking medical advice about concerning health issues. When you do see a GP after waiting at least a month, they then request tests which you have to wait another month to have done before waiting another month to be able to discuss the results, probably with a different GP due to the number of locums. Unless you chase results there is no action taken by the surgery to inform you of them, leaving you wondering whether any follow up is needed. On a positive note, the clinicians I have seen have always been pleasant, polite and professional.’ Someone else told us ‘Want a face to face appointment but nothing for over a month’.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Every day there were several appointments available to be allocated to vulnerable people requiring on the day action. These could be reallocated to anyone later in the day if they were not required for vulnerable people. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders 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. For example, staff had met a local service provider to listen to the challenges they had encountered when supporting people to access the service. 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, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

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. The service had developed a palliative care template to ensure appropriate information was recorded when these people were seen to improve their continuity of care. The records we reviewed showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, we reviewed a sample of Treatment Escalation Plan forms and found they were not consistently fully completed to indicate people’s future plans and wishes.