St Johns House 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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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. The practice worked in partnership with other organisations to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.Feedback received by CQC indicated the majority of patients had confidence in the clinical staff. The practice made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. In the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey, 89% of respondentssaid they felt their needs were met during their last appointment. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. Staff shared examples of how people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The practice listened to patient feedback and take on board any actions. The patient participation group (PPG) were positive about the practice taking on board patient feedback and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient care.

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. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. Information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required.The practice was actively involved within the local community, advocating the health needs of patients. They tailored their services to meet the diverse needs of patients and promoted health education and preventative care initiatives. For example, they built relationships with local community groups such as Worcester Fire and Rescue, Worcester University, Citizens Advice and Age UK. National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 66% of respondents felt they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses which was below the national average at 69%. However, 90% of respondentsfelt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Information on their website was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on patient’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. A range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display for patient information. Staff explained they had increased advertising the NHS digital application and informedpatients of the benefits of this to access to their medical records.Patients who haddifficulty using digital services were also supported with accessible information.The practice had a complaints policy that was accessible on their website. Complaints were managed in line with their policy. Patient feedback was positive as they felt their complaint would be dealt with appropriately. The lessons learnt from complaints was shared in staff meetings to ensure all staff were aware of the learnings following the complaint. However, not all staff used the complaint response template that should include the information about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, highlighting the contact details if a patient was not satisfied with the practice response.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care and treatment. Patients were encouraged to leave feedback. Feedback could be given verbally or written including the NHS Friends and Family Test. Feedback was reviewed on a regular basis and shared with staff and patients. The practice had a complaints policy. We saw complaints were used to improve the quality of care. Complaints were discussed in meetings and learning was shared to ensure improvements were made. Information about how to complain was readily available, patients could make a complaint in person, by telephone, via email or letter. The practice responded to all complaints. The practice involved people and listened to their preferences when making decisions. The NHS National Patient Survey data reports that 81%say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, which was lower than the national average of 87%. We asked the practice to share details of our Give Feedback on Care process with patients as part of this assessment and this feedback was positive in terms of patients feeling listened to.The practice had meetings with the Patient Participation Group (PPG). The PPG told us they had a good relationship with the practice and felt listened too. The practice implemented ‘Feedback Friday’ where they addressed the feedback comments in the form of ‘you said, we did’ that highlighted the improvements they had made following patient feedback.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community, the practice had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they offered various types of appointments such as online, in person or telephone consultations. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users as there wereautomatic doors at the entrance of the building leading to the reception area and consulting rooms were accessible on the ground floor. There was a car park on site with designated disabled parking spaces.

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. Staff treated people equally, without discrimination. Feedback from staff that used the service reflected this. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experiences. For example, the practice held a meeting about transgender patients to acknowledge ways to support them. Staff worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities. A sensory friendly space was available for those patients that would benefit from this environment. The practice had processes in place to ensure vulnerable people such as homeless patients or Travellers could register at the practice. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or did not 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. Staff regularly attended multi-disciplinary meetings where they discussed patients who received end-of-life care.