The Loughton Surgery

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 service 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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people 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 worked in partnership with other organisations to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs. People had access to appointments provided by a range of professionals.

A review of clinical records confirmed that people were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about 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.

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 needs of its community.

Leaders had organised the staff team into 3 teams, led by a GP partner. The teams included GPs, other clinicians, administration and support staff. Each person on the practice list was allocated to a team, so that when they contacted the surgery for an appointment, they were allocated to a member of their team. This helped to ensure continuity of care for people who were able to see the same clinician whenever possible.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening was visible. The practice had access to interpreter services. The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for people to support them to understand how to access services.

There were systems in place to support people to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. People were informed 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.

Information about how to make a complaint was available within the practice and on the practice website.

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

People could access appointments by telephone and online. Most appointments were available for same day booking. The practice had effective arrangements in place to identify and prioritise people according to clinical need. We spoke with several people on the day of our assessment, all of whom reported high levels of satisfaction with access to appointments and praised the practice for its availability and responsiveness.

Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost people to other appropriate services. People were given the option of a face to face or telephone appointment. People who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day and requests for home visits were reviewed and carried out if deemed appropriate.

The practice website provided people with clear information on how to book an appointment. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and disabled toilet and baby changing facilities were also available.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, was positive. We spoke with people who praised staff for their positive attitude, professionalism, and their experience of making appointments, including the availability of same day access.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

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. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English as a first language, or had 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.