Chalfont 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 in 2018, 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 patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Training in learning disabilities and autism had been carried out by staff to ensure care is person centred and inclusive.

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. This included clinicians and community teams having shared access to patient records to support joined up care planning and enable co-ordinated and timely responses. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. The practice also had a policy of recruiting locally to ensure staff had a natural understanding of the patient populations background.

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 and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. 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 practice had an active patient participation group (PPG) which was engaged with the practice on a regular basis.

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

The National GP Patient Survey data (01/25 – 03/25) showed that 85% of respondents were positive about the overall experience of contacting the practice, which was above the expected national average of 75%. Sixty five percent of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone which was also above the national expected average of 53%. Despite this, the practice had an action plan in place to improve on the results.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example, online, in person and by telephone. The entrance and corridors were wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs and mobility scooters; two lifts were available for patients to access the first floor where the practice was situated. Disabled parking was available directly across the road in the local supermarket car park. Accessibility features included step free access, and accessible toilet facilities. Staff were trained to support patients with mobility or sensory needs, and reasonable adjustments were made where required.

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. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local 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. Clinicians ensure that all plans and decisions are made in consultation with the patient and their families.