Newton 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 the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last inspection, 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.

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.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider monitored demand and capacity regularly to improve people’s experience of accessing the service. People could have their initial consultation needs met on the day of request or through being booked into routine appointments (where this was more appropriate to meet their needs or if more convenient for the patient). Clinicians were available to see people for all types of appointment requests including urgent appointments.

People who used the service provided mixed feedback in the National GP Patient Survey and NHS Friends and with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice was lower than average at 48% (compared to 73% nationally) and 51% of respondents (compared to 69% nationally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. Patient satisfaction for finding it easy to get through to the practice by phone was 35% (compared to 57% nationally). The provider was monitoring access and had made improvements in response to patient feedback. The provider had trialed an alternative system for managing calls over a period of time; however, this was subsequently discontinued as it was felt to reduce ease of access for patients. The provider anticipated that patient satisfaction would improve following the implementation of the revised arrangements.

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the Accessible Information Standard, and the patient record system was used to alert staff to any specific communication needs enabling them to communicate effectively with patients.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff and leaders ensured they were able to recognise patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they tailored the service to meet their care, support and treatment needs in response to this.

The provider had processes to ensure all people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances.

Information could be made available in alternative formats for people who required this. Patients were invited to let the practice know if they had any particular communication needs and this was noted as an alert on the patient record system to ensure staff were always made aware of people’s individual needs.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the local patient population, and the difficulties people may encounter. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

The provider monitored data about the care and treatment provided to patients. Available data showed that people experienced similar to or better outcomes for care and treatment when compared to services locally and nationally. The results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 80% of respondents (compared to 90% nationally) felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment and 63% responded positively about their overall experience of the practice (compared to 77% nationally).

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.