Plympton Health 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.

At our last assessment in July 2015, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains unchanged.

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 patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records evidenced 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 liaised with and involved mental health liaison teams, learning disability nurses and external agencies to co-produce care plans (where relevant).

The service had a social prescribing team, who provided people with a non-medical approach to improve health and wellbeing by connecting them to local community groups and activities. Social prescribers at the service also supported parents to access the service for their children.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of people.

The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of childhood immunisation and cervical screening programmes.

The service was an accredited Armed Forces veteran friendly practice which meant they had staff who understood military-related health conditions and provide appropriate information and could refer to specialist services.

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 made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Adjustments included: easy-read materials, interpreter services including Language Line and BSL Interpreter services, double appointments (as appropriate), carer involvement, translated materials and used translating services in written communications, as well as flexible communication methods.

People were informed as to how to access their care records.

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.

Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of feedback from people who use the service. The practice monitored complaints and identified themes and trends. Records viewed showed there were clear records maintained of all complaints received, the actions taken, outcomes, learning and duty of candour in responses to complaints.

The service had a Patient Liaison and Communication Lead, whose role was to work with people who use the service and patient groups; actively seeking and responding to people’s feedback. They were responsible for the management of complaints and sharing learning and improvement from complaints across the group and promoting ‘patient facing’ surveys for feedback.

In the last 12 months, the service had undertaken 5 surveys. These included a general survey as a direct response to the National GP Patient Survey report published in 2024, one related to the new call back feature on the telephone system, one related to the new online consultation system, a musculoskeletal survey and care home service survey.

Feedback was reviewed and analysed with reports developed outlining feedback and considerations for changes. These were discussed at management meetings and shared with the Beacon Board (the board of directors for Beacon Medical Group).

Changes were made in response to patient feedback. For example, changes to the online consultation templates to enable people submitting online prescription requests in the event of holidays. A review and change of word count to online consultation forms to allow people to add more detail. Improved prescription clerk communication with people, to confirm the processing of their prescription request had left the service and was with their chosen pharmacy.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

National GP Patient Survey data showed lower than average results for accessing the practice. Feedback provided to CQC, in relation to access, was mixed. People told us they either had a good experience or they had difficulty accessing appointments. Feedback from members of the community about the provider were positive. People could access the service to suit their needs. For example, online, in person and by telephone.

To ensure people with learning disabilities had regular annual health checks and reviews, the practice team made personal phone calls to book appointments. This promoted maximum flexibility when planning their appointment, as well as the practice team being able to follow up those who do not attend. Appointments for these people were longer, adjusted, and could be supported by carers (where appropriate).

The service had systems to monitor access. Including audit, patient feedback and identifying trends in complaints relating to access and patient outcomes.

The service utilised demand and capacity tools to regularly review the use a range of services, to ensure the demand was met. They monitored availability of appointments at meetings, monitoring waiting times for appointments and by applying the use of a RAG rating, which ensured that high-risk patients (red) were proactively invited for clinical reviews and lower-risk patients (green) received lifestyle advice and electronic messaging. This ensured efficient management of demand and staffing levels throughout the year.

To promote access to the Covid and influenza vaccination programmes, the vaccines were provided at the service, to reduce the needs for people to travel to other centres. This was especially important for households including people who had difficulties in attending alternative centres. This not only supported influenza prevention but allowed the nurse team to offer additional vaccines during these visits, as well as assessing any other care and treatment needs.

As a result of feedback from people who use the service, the service had implemented an urgent care team based at one of its branch sites, after recognising people with transport and mobility issues were unable to be seen in a timely manner.

The service reviewed its budget and aligned this with their pharmacy team. Meaning that pharmacists (employed by the service) could provide chronic disease management (CDM) support to their nursing team and improved access for people requiring CDM.

The service provided extended access, Monday- Friday 6.30pm-8pm, with one site providing pre-booked and telephone appointments during this time. This service was provided from sites across two communities, Plympton and Ivybridge, to ensure that all registered people have access to evening appointments.

On Saturdays extended access was delivered from either Glenside Medical Centre or Ivybridge Medical Practice. The service had a range of practitioners working both evening and weekend clinics providing access for GP, nurse, advanced clinical practitioner, FCP and pharmacist appointments. Demand and service need was closely monitored and adapted, if an alternative service was indicated as being required.

Staff and leaders actively 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, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mainly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders and practice staff proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations 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, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people, refugees and Travellers.

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. Staff assisted people in registering for digital access, including offering digital inclusion support and tailored guidance for those less confident with technology.

The service could accommodate people with sensory needs to wait in the quieter areas rather than the waiting room (if appropriate and safe). The service considered and always tried to accommodate requests for preferred times of the day (if possible) to assist those who preferred the quieter times.

We saw that flags were added to people’s records to ensure consistent and respectful care for people with specific needs, and who may need reasonable adjustments. For example, English not being their first language, learning disabilities, autism, mental health conditions, deafness and visual impairment.

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.