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 did not assess all quality statements in this key question. We only assessed the parts of the quality statements that were included in the warning notices we issued to the provider on 19 December 2024.

Complaints were not fully responded to and there was no independent scrutiny of complaints against clinicians. Although there had been an improvement to the timekeeping of the lead GP, people still often had to wait an extended time after their given appointment time before they were seen.

At our last assessment this key question was rated as Requires improvement. This assessment was carried out to check if the provider had complied with the warning notices issued to them as an outcome of the last assessment. The rating awarded at this assessment remains Requires improvement.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The assessment of November 2024 found that complaints were not managed in line with the practice’s policy, learning from complaints, clinicians responded to complaints about them, the lead GP responded to complaints made about them, with no input or oversight from anyone else, and responses were not always appropriate.

At this assessment we found the required improvements had not been made. The practice told us there had only been one formal complaint since the previous assessment. We saw this had not been fully responded to. GPs wrote a response to complaints against them, with no input or investigation from anyone else. The complaints log did not state whether the complaint had been upheld or not.

The 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, and it was not unusual for patients to be seen over an hour late due to the length of time the lead GP spent with people.

At this assessment we saw there had been some improvement. We spoke with 4 patients and two mentioned that appointments running late was an issue, with one saying they thought the average delay was about 40 minutes. We looked at the appointments for the lead GP for the week of the assessment and the 2 previous weeks. For 5 of the sessions the average wait after the appointment time was over 30 minutes. For 9 sessions people had to wait 45 minutes or more after their given appointment time. The practice managers told us early appointments were normally on time, but they could be 30 to 50 minutes late as the day went on. However, they told us there had been some improvement since November 2024.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.