Longtown Medical Centre

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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 their 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 participated in planning for their care needs. Most engaged in decisions about their care.

Following a recent incident, the practice reviewed their change of address policy which found that updates were needed regarding patients who were homeless. The practice did this and informed the relevant staff and stakeholders of these changes. To reflect the needs of patients, the practice had multiple ways of conducting appointments, including face to face, over the phone or via videocall.

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 quickly to refer to other services to meet the needs of its patient population, including the mental health team, health visitors and community health.

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, 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 including electronic or paper copies depending on the patients’ individual needs or digital knowledge.

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 reviewed by leadership and outcomes (including learning points) were communicated to staff via email.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The National GP Patient Survey and Friends and Family Test feedback showed patients were positive about how they could access the practice.

Leaders told us it was rare that they had to offer appointments more than 5 days after the point of contact. Patient feedback confirmed this.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The National GP Patient Survey showed that had 91% of respondents were positive response regarding their overall experience at contacting the practice, against a national average of 71%. Patients were very satisfied in accessing an appointment and contacting the practice. Overall patient satisfaction was 94%, above the National average of 75% and the local average of 79%.

The practice ran an out of hours system weekly between 6.30pm and 8pm, including clinics run by GPs, practice nurses or advanced nurse practitioners.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic doors had been fitted to the entrance.

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.

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 support. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. The practice had a separate interview room where confidential conversations could take place, it could also be used as an additional waiting room for patients with learning disabilities or autistic people if they needed.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet.

Our review of clinical records 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. Care home staff told us that the practice had a good knowledge of patients who were approaching end of life.

Palliative patients within the practice were prioritised for appointments and home visits. The practice worked with district nurses and palliative care teams to ensure patient choice was met where appropriate.

Staff knew what to do in relation to power of attorney and mental capacity. Mandatory training on this meant all staff were up to date on required policies and procedures.