Ladygate Lane 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 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.

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 diverse needs of its community. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patient information leaflets and notices were available in the patient waiting area which told patients how to access support groups and organisations. This information was also accessible via the practice website.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available and could be requested 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.

Representatives of the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and patients providing feedback for this assessment described how their individual complaints had been satisfactorily handled in a timely way.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The service was located on the ground floor of a converted residential property and patient areas were limited to the ground floor where there was level access.

The practice also provided a shared care service to residents in a local care home. The duty doctor and practice nurse would undertake home visits for annual health reviews and vaccinations.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2024) showed that the practice was scoring above national averages for indicators on accessing the practice. For example, 73% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by phone (national average 50%), and 72% of respondents responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice (national average 67%).

Representatives of the PPG and patients providing feedback for this assessment were satisfied with the access provided by the practice. Some reported their dislike of using online facilities and valued the flexibility in how appointments could be booked and carried out to suit their individual needs.

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, both to the provider as well as to CQC, 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 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.