OHP-Dr Lumley & Partners Also known as Greenridge 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 carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, on 13 March 2024. • The leaders used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. • Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. • Significant changes had been made to the appointments system to improve access to care. • The provider prioritised, allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access.

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.

Patients could book appointments by telephone (with support from staff), online, and in person by visiting the practice. Patients could ask for administrative requests to be completed by filling in a form on the practice website. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, or as a home visit. Same day appointments were available and patients could book routine appointments up to 2 weeks in advance. Processes were developed in line with the demands of the practice’s patient population who were situated in an area with high levels of deprivation. Systems were in place to recall and invite patients to attend for childhood immunisations and cervical cancer screening, with nurse appointments readily available within 48 hours. Unverified data provided suggested that new ways of working had improved uptake of the national cervical cancer screening programme. The online triage tool was available Monday to Thursday from 7.30am to 7.30pm and until 6.30pm on Fridays. Patients completing the online triage were advised they would receive a response within one working day, although evidence reviewed demonstrated response times were often much quicker. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services and were supported to this by documented protocols and access to a duty doctor. The practice offered appointments from a variety of clinical staff for example the health care assistant, physician’s associate, physiotherapist, practice nurses, mental health nurse and a social prescriber. When the practice was closed, patients were advised to contact NHS 111.

Leaders and staff demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve it. The practice had undertaken audits of demand and capacity and used the information from these audits to support the introduction of a new appointments system. The new system used a digital triage tool for all patients requesting appointments or support. Leaders were able to demonstrate how the system had been effectively implemented and streamlined to deliver the best possible outcomes for staff and patients. Services were altered accordingly to meet demand and evidence reviewed demonstrated these systems were working effectively. We heard about other changes made including: work to improve patient knowledge of other ways to receive treatment, including from local pharmacies, and of the different clinical staff in the practice. Leaders were able to demonstrate how these changes were assessed to make sure patients were not disadvantaged and how the impact of the changes was being monitored. We heard how the practice provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities, including adjustments to the registration and to how patients could communicate with the practice. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care.

The results of the most recent GP Patient Survey showed the practice performance was largely in line with national averages for 3 out of 4 of the indicators measured. The only significant outlier was the ease of getting through to the GP practice where practice performance was 43.3% compared to the national average of 49.6%. Patient feedback gathered by the practice was more positive, including feedback gathered after some recent improvements to the appointment system. Monthly patient satisfaction surveys sent by the practice demonstrated on average between May 2023 and February 2024, of the 447 responses received, 85% were satisfied with ease of getting through to the practice on the phone.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.