The Broadway 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.

Staff took responsibility for lead roles in different specialisms to support people to understand their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided.

Staff told us patient preferences were taken into consideration when booking appointments, for example special requirements due to religious beliefs or disabilities. Female and male staff were available at the practice. Where appropriate, staff ensured carers and dependants were involved in the planning and making shared decisions about the person’s care and treatment.

People reported high levels of satisfaction with staff. In the national GP patient survey 2024 96% of respondents stated they believed the healthcare professionals had all the information they needed about them. This was comparable with the national average for patient responses and above the local average.

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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

People received care and treatment from the service that demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were delivered flexibly.

Respondents to the national GP patient survey for 2024 reported positively on the service they received with 95% stating they knew what the next steps would be within two days of contacting the practice. This is above the local and national averages for patient experience.

There were effective systems in place to ensure newly diagnosed people had access to information about their conditions and had been signposted to support services they may wish to access.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The practice had access to interpreter services. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff told us they kept people and those important to them up to date on the outcome of concerns reported. We reviewed complaint records and saw people had been updated in a timely and appropriate manner.

There were established and effective processes for people to feedback on the service and care they received independently of the national GP patient survey or Friends and Family test. The practice had advertised their active patient participation group as an established means of communicating with people and understanding the potential impact of changes to how they deliver services. The members met in persons and minutes of the meeting were available for people to review and comment on.

People reported high levels of satisfaction with their care in the national GP patient survey. For example, 91% of people who responded to the survey told us the healthcare professional was good at listening to them. 91% of people who responded told us they were as much involved as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. The responses were above the local and national levels of patient satisfaction.

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. We saw evidence that the service learned from complaints and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback.

People told us they could easily contact the practice by telephone or via their website. For example, 81% of respondents to the national GP patient survey stated they were able to contact the service easily on the telephone and 51% found their website easy to use. These satisfaction results were above or in line the local and national averages for people.

There were established and effective systems in place to ensure equity of access where people contacted the practice in person, as opposed to via their online clinical system eConsult.

The service actively oversaw patient demand for services and clinical risks. We observed the process and saw people had been assessed and their enquiries responded to in a timely manner.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Since April 2023 the practice had partnered with a local GP federation to offer extended hours appointments to people. These were available between 6.30pm to 8pm on weekdays and between 9am and 5pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Text and telephone call reminders were sent to people to reduce non-attendance rates and arrangements were in place for prioritising people.

In response to the national GP patient survey data 2024 and feedback from members of the community, the service had identified changes to improve access. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning or physical disability. People could access the service in a way that met their needs. For example, online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were all on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been installed to the entrance.

Systems were in place to ensure trained staff followed up and reviewed clinical referrals and results.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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 service as well as to CQC, was mainly positive. Feedback provided to CQC, in relation to access, was mixed. People told us they either had a good experience, or they had difficulty accessing appointments. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

The service 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. We reviewed Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation documents (DNACPRs) and found that they were in line with guidance.