Gardiner Crescent 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

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.

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, for example, working with other practices in the primary care network to support specialist input to meet patient need. (Primary Care Networks are groups of GP practices that collaborate with other healthcare and social care providers to deliver more coordinated and integrated care to their local populations.) This included dietary advice and weight management, social prescribing and mental wellbeing.

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. 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.

In our inspection carried out in June/July 2023, we found there were still gaps in the effectiveness of complaints handling. At this assessment we found further improvements had been made and complaints were now handled effectively.

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.

The practice had a patient participation group in place, but numbers of the group were low, and the practice had struggled to encourage new members to join.

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

The National GP Patient Survey showed overall positive results in relation to access to the practice. The majority of patients surveyed reported they were overall satisfied with the overall experience (80% reported they found it good or very good overall, compared to 74% nationally). Patients reported good overall experience of contacting the practice, with 81% saying they found this good or very good, compared to 67% nationally.

They had made adjustments to ensure those who may be most vulnerable of poor health outcomes were prioritised. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. There was a targeted service for those who were frail and elderly. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp had been fitted to the entrance.

At our inspection in June/July 2023, we found a shortage of clinical capacity meant patients were not always supported to access care and treatment in a way that was convenient for them. At this inspection, we found there was improved clinical capacity at senior nurse level. However, the practice told us they still sometimes closed the Gardiner Crescent Surgery site on a Friday to manage staffing levels safely. They informed patients of this, and services were available at the Craghill Medical Centre in Stanley. However, this contravened their contract with the local Integrated Care Board (ICB), who commission the service and limited choice for patients. The practice contacted the ICB following the site visit to explore options in relation to this.

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.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored 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, 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. 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.