Station 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

Access to the service had undergone significant change with the introduction of online triaging of all patients. Using this service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. However, the patients we spoke to struggled to get through to the service by phone which was reflected in the NHS GP Patient Survey.

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 consistently prioritised person-centred care, ensuring that individuals were actively involved in decisions regarding their treatment and support. Care planning was conducted collaboratively, with adjustments made in response to any changes in patients’ needs.

Care plans were comprehensive and tailored to reflect the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients, including considerations related to protected characteristics as defined under the Equality Act.

A review of clinical records demonstrated that patients were supported in understanding their health conditions and were meaningfully engaged in the planning and decision-making processes related to 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.

The practice collaborated with other services to effectively address patient needs. A dedicated women's health team was established to provide expert care and ensure accessible services for women in the area. Additionally, the safeguarding team worked closely with local social services to deliver both clinical and holistic support for vulnerable patients in the community.
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had placed QR codes in the reception areas which linked to relevant topics and paper copied were available from reception.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients 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.

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 service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
Following the merger of all practices in Hereford, the group's service delivery model underwent significant changes. Now operating from a purpose-built main facility and three branch sites, the allocation of consultations and treatments was adjusted in alignment with the NHS digital plan.

To enhance efficiency, the service implemented an online triage system for all requests and enquiries. During the inspection, we found these were monitored by a duty doctor, supported by additional clinical and non-clinical staff. This approach ensured that non-urgent enquiries, such as repeat prescription requests, were managed appropriately, while urgent needs were identified and prioritised.

Patients without online access were able to phone the reception or attend reception in person and they would complete the online form on their behalf. This was then processed in the same way. The feedback from patients we spoke to showed there was a difficulty getting through to the service by phone due to long wait times.

On average, the service triaged approximately 1,700 clinical forms per week, leading to either treatment from a telephone call, on the day GP appointments, appointments in the next few days or routine appointments. There were also some specific appointments available such as first contact practitioners, nurses, healthcare assistants, women’s health team and home visits which were allocated appropriately. On the inspection, we found the average time to process these was 1 hour and 40 minutes from the form being completed to allocate an outcome. The service had some flexibility, and an additional GP would assist if the volume increased, or the average time increased which was monitored by the management team.

The management team aimed to enhance phone access by increasing capacity during peak times to reduce wait times. Additionally, they promoted online access to ensure patients were aware of this alternative option.
 

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was generally negative. The NHS GP Patient Survey was consistently below the local and national average. For example, for patients asked if they usually get to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional, when they would like to, only 8% agreed against an average of 40% for the local and national results. Similarly, 24% found it easy to get through by phone, significantly lower than the 58% local and 50% national averages, and 46% believed they had waited an appropriate amount of time for their last GP appointment, falling short of the 72% local and 66% national benchmarks.

In response, the service introduced a new online access system and actively engaged with patients to encourage its use. Monthly surveys, mirroring NHS patient survey questions, showed steady improvement leading up to the January inspection - except for phone access, which remained below national averages. To address this, efforts were underway to expand capacity by integrating remote call takers, ensuring patients who rely on phone access received better support.

Additionally, the service faced a high number of missed appointments, with up to 1,000 patients failing to attend each month. This significantly reduced appointment availability and impacted overall efficiency. In response, the management team sought strategies to address the issue, engaging directly with patients who frequently missed appointments to find solutions.
Staff upheld principles of equality and non-discrimination. Leaders took proactive steps to remove barriers, working closely with local organisations, including voluntary sector groups, to tackle 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 service, 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.