Ambrose Avenue Group Practice

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.

This service scored 71 (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. People’s clinical records we reviewed had flags to reflect their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. Feedback from people we spoke with during the assessment were positive about the monitoring they received for their long-term condition, the medicine reviews, and felt staff understood their individual needs. We were told where appropriate, family members and carers were involved in peoples care and treatment decisions.

Clinical records we reviewed reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs.

People could request information in alternative formats and arrangements were in place to support people who had a sensory or physical impairment and those that needed an interpreter.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, to provide joined-up care, and supported choice and continuity.

Leaders at the practice had a good understanding of the needs of their local population and provided appropriate services at the practice. They worked with their Primary Care Network (PCN) practices to develop services to meet the needs of their local population. These included being a veteran friendly practice and extended access appointments at the practice(A PCN isa group of local GP practices working together with other health and social care services to provide integrated, patient-focused care within a locality).

The practice provided appropriate information for people on their website and within the waiting room. We did not receive feedback during the onsite assessment regarding the access to appropriate information. We were told information could be requested in different formats, and we saw flags on people’s records alerting staff if they had any communication or accessibility needs.

Interpreter services were available for people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment. Staff told us about the arrangements in place to book an interpreter.

Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available within the practice, and patients were advised how to access their care records on the practice website.

The practice had information for people about how to share feedback, ideas, or raise complaints about their care and treatment, on their website and in the practice waiting area. People were advised of the contact details of the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) complaints and Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) service, and the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), if they wanted to escalate their complaint.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice policy. However, when we spoke with staff although they had been updated about the complaints received, they were unable to recall any learning or changes that had been made following a complaint or significant event.

People who provided feedback had no concerns in this area. However, the practice patient participation group (PPG) told us they did not feel they were asked for their opinions or feedback. They also told us they were not updated when changes were made to practice services or processes. We discussed this with the practice leaders on the day we visited the practice. Following the onsite visit, we were provided assurance that GPs and leaders would attend the meetings and a set agenda with updates would be implemented for future meetings.

People we spoke with during the onsite assessment told us that the recent online appointment access changes made at the practice had improved access and the experience of making an appointment. We were told the receptionists supported those who did not have internet access, a computer, or smart phone to register and book an appointment on the online booking system on their behalf.

The practice provided longer appointments to people with long-term conditions to ensure a comprehensive review. People with a learning difficulty were also provided with longer appointments as part of their annual health check.

The practice environment was accessible with a lift to reach treatment rooms not on the ground floor. There was automated door opening to the entrance of the building.

Arrangements were in place and flags were added to people’s records to support staff to engage with those who were more likely to experience inequalities in health and outcomes. Practice staff and leaders told us they used the information in people’s records to tailor their care, support, and treatment.

We received no specific feedback from people regarding their experiences in this area.

We saw that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The practice used appropriate systems including interpreters for those who did not speak

English or those that did not have digital access or could use the internet.

The practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

Staff and leaders told us they supported people to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including those at the end of their life.

We received positive feedback from people, which included the care home representatives about how the practice staff supported people to plan for their future and to meet people’s end of life care needs.

The practice held a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) policy. Care home representatives confirmed their residents had DNACPR/ReSPECT documentation that was reviewed regularly with the respective residents or their carer’s.

The practice maintained a list of vulnerable people, those with palliative care needs, and people at the end of their life. There were flags on people’s records to support and review them, which included people who lived in care homes, those who were housebound, and practice staff worked in partnership with other organisations. For example, there was a weekly care home review in place.