Umbrella Medical at Hatherton 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

The practice provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the practice took it seriously and acted on it. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. Feedback from patients was positive about accessing the practices provided and this was also reflected in the results of the GP National Patient Survey. The practice 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 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 practice 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 practice demonstrated a strong understanding of its population and used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered for people, as alerts were added to medical records so that reception were aware upon contact that the person had additional needs. For example, people with hearing impairment had access to the hearing loop and autistic people or people with learning disabilities were offered a quiet place to wait for appointments.

The provider completed numerous clinical and non-clinical audits to review for example, urgent referrals and patient deaths and ensure care was optimised. Palliative and frailty registers were maintained and discussed at regular meetings.

The provider held multi-disciplinary meetings with community teams including local hospice staff. They worked with community pharmacy, mental health and social care teams as well as maintaining secondary care shared care agreements.

The practice 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 the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider and committees.

The practice worked with their primary care network (PCN), a collaboration of 4 practices. They worked actively together including work on capacity and patient access.

National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 57% of respondents felt they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses which was lower than the local average of 69% and lower than the national average at 64%.

The practice 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, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The lessons learnt from complaints were discussed and shared in staff meetings to ensure all staff were aware of the consequential changes. Patients were informed about how to access their care records. A range of health and wellbeing promotion videos were displayed on TV screens in the reception areas.

The practice had considered digital exclusion safeguards; this included the offer of reception staff completing bookings on behalf of patients via phone or in person. Text message alternatives for those without mobiles, included letters and phone calls.

The practice 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.

Patient feedback systems included:

Written complaint/compliment.

Verbally on the telephone

Online

Face to face at the reception desk

Via patient feedback forms

Via the NHS review website

Friends and Family texts

National GP survey annual reviews

Via Patient Representation Group (PRG)

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

The practice was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday. Patients had extended access to appointments in the evenings and the weekends and out of hours services were available. Data from the National GP Patient Survey highlighted that the practice’s scores mostly met the national average for most questions related to access. However, 43% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice via the website, in comparison to the national average of 51%. The practice completed a telephone audit and monitored the calls closely, to assess the volume of incoming calls, waiting times and answered calls on a monthly basis. The practice had introduced a call back system to improve patient access and reduce waiting time. Various appointment types were available such as online, in person or telephone consultations. When patients experienced difficulty completing the online appointment forms, receptionists provided support and submitted online request forms on their behalf to ensure inclusivity and equity of access. The staff provided additional support and education for those who had difficulty using the NHS app. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users, and consultation rooms were accessible on the ground floor.

There was a car park at the front of Medical centre with designated disabled parking spaces and dedicated charging points for vehicles. A ramp was available at the rear entrance of the building, providing access for people with mobility needs.

The practice had implemented a frequent attender programme to identify and support patients who frequently accessed services. Patients were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, with care plans and referrals made where appropriate. We saw evidence that audits of the programme were undertaken to monitor attendance trends and assess the effectiveness of interventions

The Patient Representation Group (PRG) had promoted the use of the NHS App.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the practice, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. 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. 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 and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the practice, 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. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

The practice discussed Gold Standards Framework (GSF), a systematic approach used to optimise the care of patients nearing the end of life, at regular multidisciplinary team (MDT) and GSF meetings, which were appropriately minuted. The GSF register was maintained and kept up to date. At the time of inspection, there were 274 patients on the register. We saw that patients had been appropriately coded within the clinical system.