DeMontfort 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 looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 64 (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 patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

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 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 some of the diverse needs of its community, for example, understanding the needs of the local student population. Work was planned to look further into the practice demographics to promote the uptake of screening immunisation programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were 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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

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

The practice had a system for dealing with complaints however not all complaints were captured and recorded. We were told that minor complaints were not recorded, however also told that some complaints were with the site manager which had not been escalated through the formal complaints process. Patients we spoke with who had raised complaints did not always feel they had been heard.

We reviewed some formal complaints which had been raised and found that when a formal response was completed, it was thorough in going through all aspects of the complaint. However, the practice did not always follow their own policy in relation to formally acknowledging the complaint.
There was a lack of evidence of learning from complaints as not all were recorded, and meeting minutes were not always effective at demonstrating dissemination. Whilst we were told that staff members could go back and listen to recording of meetings, we were told that staff did not have time to do this.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The National GP Patient Survey data for accessing the practice was below national averages and had declined since previous years. Patients we spoke with during the inspection and feedback left on NHS choices was negative about accessing the practice via telephone.
We were told that due to the practice demographic patients could book appointments online only. Where processes had been put in place to support those without online access, practice staff couldn’t override this themselves to quickly book these patients an appointment. When appointments were booked up, reception staff signposted patients to 111 or were told to try again the next day. Some appointments were available via the PCN however patients were not always aware of these.

During our inspection, we saw that there was a wait time on the telephone of 1.5 hours. Whilst the provider was aware of long wait times and had attempted to change telephone systems to address this and had other future plans to try and improve this, there was no evidence of this at the time of our inspection.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

At the time of our inspection, there was no evidence that the practice had attempted to seek ways to address barriers to improving people’s experiences such as increasing uptake of immunisations and screening appointments. The practice data for these was lower than expected. The practice recognised this and had ideas to engage with hard-to-reach groups however at the time of this assessment, no worked had begun with this.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 83% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last GP appointment, and 85% had confidence and trust in the last healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. Feedback from people about their experiences was mixed. People told us that accessing an appointment was difficult as the online booking was fully booked as soon as they were released.

Whilst the practice had completed some analysis of patient feedback, the sample size was small, and actions didn’t contain in depth detail of how the practice planned to improve patient satisfaction and had not begun at the time of our inspection.

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.