Rock Healthcare Limited

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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed and is now rated as good.

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.

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. 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 that 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, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. The service worked well with a local homeless charity and the PCN.

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 within the waiting area. 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. Training sessions were put on for people as part of the wider work being undertaken by the PCN to help promote online services and to show people how to access health records, request repeat prescriptions and make appointments online. These sessions were put on not just at GP practices but in other areas of the local area that might be more accessible for people, this included library and other such services. The website used by the practice used Google translate to help people whose first language is not English.

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. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints. The practice was setting up a Patient participation Group (PPG) at the time of the inspection this was in its infancy with only one meeting having been held. There was an area on one of the notice boards dedicated to the PPG and the practice assured us that this was a work in progress to help achieve more views from people. The practice sent out Friends and Family tests and used this data to help improve services for people.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. 59.1% of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice, the national average was 67.3%. The survey showed us that 37.1% of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone. In response to the data the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service and had implemented a new telephony system. This system had been put in place after the survey results had been published and as such the results do not reflect the change. The practice offered extended appointment times 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 that had suitable wide access door frames to allow wheelchair and pram access. There were suitable disabled toilet facilities and there were two lifts that could be used to gain access to the practice based on the first floor. This was mirrored at the Radcliffe branch site.

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 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. The practice had built a strong relationship with Red Door, a local homeless charity, and helped overcome some of the barriers that the homeless community faced in gaining access to healthcare in the local area. 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 undertaken Pride In Practice training and working towards achieving a bronze award in this area. This will help to support people that identify as LGBTQ+ at the practice. The provider supported veterans of the armed forces and each one was coded on the clinical system to ensure the correct level of support could be afforded to them. There was information on notice boards in the waiting areas specifically for veterans. The practice had the appropriate processes in place to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. 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. All these patients were being managed correctly in line with current DNACPR guidance.