Mallard Medical 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. The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. 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. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

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 service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. The National GP Patient Survey data was generally positive about patient access to the service. The practice had made reasonable adjustments to make sure patients could access the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. 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 and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. However, there was a lack of mechanisms in place to ensure patients were able to give feedback on their experiences of the service to ensure there was no unmet need or barriers to achieve equity in healthcare. There was no representative patient participation group in place to give the practice feedback, no local patient survey had been carried out and friends and family tests were not actively reviewed to check if changes to service delivery were required. Where the practice was below comparators for uptake of preventative health care, such as immunisations and cancer screening, the practice had not undertaken any analysis to identify any demographical trends or reasons to help the practice improve outcomes for these patients. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments, when identified by patients, 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.

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.