Black Country Family 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

Leaders understood the challenges to patient access and services were being designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access.

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 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.

The practice told us that they regularly involved patients in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment that meets their needs. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, deprivation of liberty safeguarding and mental capacity.

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.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP national patient survey were in line with local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 85% of respondents said they felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, this was in line with the local average of 88%, but slightly below the national average of 90%. A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decision ns 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.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and were taking action to develop services in response to those needs. Through the PCN, the practice staff were able to offer patients access to other services such as social prescribing, physiotherapy and a care co-ordinator to support their overall health and wellbeing. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The Modality Partnership planned to work in partnership with Barnados children’s charity to support families with health and social needs who may benefit from coordinated support. The co-ordinated approach is designed to address the health needs of children who face significant health challenges due to social, economic, or environmental factors.

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.

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed 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 spoke with patients during the onsite assessment and found they were unaware of how to make a complaint. We found information was available on the practice website and also on the noticeboards in the waiting room.

We found complaints were managed centrally by Modality Partnership and the patient experience team. All complaints were discussed with the practice leadership team and investigated in line with the practice’s policy. A yearly audit was carried out to identify trends and implement improvements to the quality of services provided.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 78% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly below the local average of 84% and the national average of 87%.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. Evidence provided showed that over the past 12 months, Friends and Family Test results demonstrated improvements in patient satisfaction and overall experience. In October 2024, 71% of patients rated their experience as very good/good. In September 2025 this had slightly increased to 76%. The practice had also seen a reduction in the same time period for people rating the practice as poor/very poor from 21% to 10%.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received mixed feedback on the care and treatment people received.

There was a patient participation group (PPG), in place and meetings were held every 3 months. The leadership team told us they were actively trying to encourage patients to join, and we saw evidence to promote the PPG in the reception area.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as complaints, friends and family test and via informal feedback from patients. The GP national patient survey showed 13% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was significantly below the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%. The practice carried out a monthly GP access questionnaire which was sent directly to patients who had recently accessed the service. The results of the inhouse survey showed between June to September 2025 54% of patients found it easy to get through on the phone. The monthly GP Access Questionnaire results were reviewed by the Operational Management Team and at Modality Partnership board level. The outcome of the questionnaires were discussed at practice meetings to ensure staff were aware of patient feedback at a local level. Trends were monitored on a monthly basis and action plans were implemented to address any fall in patient satisfaction.

The practice had implemented Rapid Health in November 2024. The AI system assessed patients, determined care pathways, and allocated available appointments. When no appointments were available, the patient request was directed to the duty doctor to make a decision on the appropriate care pathway required. Patients who required an appointment had to complete the form online. Feedback from patients we spoke with on the day of the assessment highlighted the difficulties they faced in completing the form. Patients told us the form was too long and some struggled filling it in. Staff were available to support patients who were digitally excluded to complete the form, however patients said they were uncomfortable sharing personal information with staff who helped them complete the form.

The practice had been monitoring the results of the Rapid Health uptake and found that requests through the system had steadily increased as patients became used to using the new system. Calls to the practice had reduced, allowing staff more time to support patients who were digitally excluded and needed help in completing the form.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example nurses and a pharmacist. Appointments were available from 6.30pm to 8pm and on Saturday through the PCN at another local practice.

The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained to signpost patients to other appropriate services.

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available. The practice had a range of information letters in different language to support patients who did not have English as their first language. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability with designated parking spaces.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. 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 with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment provided mixed feedback about the services provided. We were told that the practice used a high number of locums and patients commented on continuity of care. 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.

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.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. We were told that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to share and discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. We found that staff had completed the required training.

There were registers held for those patients who were vulnerable who were on the palliative care register or at the end of their life. We found that clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making and saw that consent was documented.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We reviewed a random sample of 3 clinical records of people who had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) form in place and found they were relevant, completed and available within the clinical record.