Archived: Little Lever Health Centre-2

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

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

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and leaders gave examples of people receiving the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary.

The practice received positive average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 91% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally and 84% locally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 87% (compared to 87% nationally and locally) said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Results of the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 63% of patients got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, compared to 40% nationally and locally.

Staff had a good understanding of the demographics of the area. The provider told us their patients appreciated not being rushed during appointments and they often attended with more than 1 issue to discuss. However, this had a knock-on effect for other people whose appointment times were delayed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had up to date information governance and data protection policies. The practice was registered with the Information Commissioner's Office. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The assessment of November 2024 found that complaints were not managed well, and the March 2025 assessment found no improvements had been made.

Meeting minutes gave very little information about complaints. We saw that some complaints had been discussed that did not appear on complaints logs kept by the practice. A manager had noted a verbal complaint about the provider and told the complainant it would be formally recorded. It was not recorded on the practice’s complaints logs. Written complaints responses did not always include how a patient could escalate their complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The provider had put an action plan in place following our assessment of November 2024 stating all letters would include this information, but this had not been followed. A further action plan stated that in May 2025 the provider considered improvements to the complaints system had been made.

There were 2 systems for recording complaints; the practice’s electronic system used to record and monitor complaints, and an excel spreadsheet. The 2 separate complaints logs were not identical. The interim practice manager told us that going forward there would be just 1 way of recording complaints.

The practice had a patient participation group (PPG), but minutes indicated that accurate information was not always provided to the group.

The provider received above average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to access. The percentage of respondents were positive about their experience of contacting the practice was 88% (compared to 70% nationally and 72% locally) and 79% of respondents (compared to 68% nationally and 67% locally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. The percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 75% (compared to 57% nationally and 53% locally). 88% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App (compared to 49% nationally and 52% locally).

However, we identified areas where improvement was required.

Our assessment of November 2024 found people could access appointments but usually had to wait a long time to see the lead GP after they arrived, with it not being unusual for patients to be seen over an hour late due to the length of time the lead GP spent with people. The March 2025 assessment found there were still delays. At this assessment we looked at the provider’s appointments for the previous 3 weeks. Only 1 clinic started at the correct time. We analysed 87 appointments, and 49% of patients were seen 30 minutes or more after their given appointment time. 23% of patients were seen 45 minutes or more after their given appointment time. The action plan the provider put in place following our November 2024 assessment. This stated they would implement and enforce a system to ensure appointments ran on time. Evidence seen on this assessment showed this system had not been successful.

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.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 90% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and locally. 72% described their overall experience of the practice as good, compared to 75% nationally and 77% locally.

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 not always 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. We saw an example of a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision without a rationale of what condition the patient had to warrant the decision. There was not always evidence the DNACPR decisions had been shared with other services as necessary.