Killamarsh 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 68 (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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were mostly supported to understand their condition and were involved in the planning for their care needs. However, a small number of people prescribed a medicine used in the treatment of diabetes had not always been informed of the risks associated with this medicine or it had not been appropriately coded in their records. The provider audited this group of people and found that out of 183 people prescribed this medicine, 28 people had not been coded appropriately. Learning was identified and their risk register updated with a target completion date of 31 October 2025.

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.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population and had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, the age distribution of the practice population showed there was a higher number of older people registered with the practice. To support this group of people, the care co-ordinator proactively worked in partnership with local services to build relationships with community groups and co-ordinate and promote the take up of these services. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider and primary care network.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, screening, immunisations and interpreter services. In response to our assessment, systems had been put in place to quickly obtain easy read material for people with a learning disability.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People 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. 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 people’s feedback, including complaints. Systems were in place to identify trends in complaints. For example, poor staff attitude. Where trends had been identified, action had been taken by leaders.

Patient feedback did not always show that the service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We received 3 complaints from people regarding poor access to appointments. Results from the national GP Patient Survey showed that 32% of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone. This was below the national average of 53%. However, 62% of respondents to the GP patient survey responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice. This was comparable with the national average of 70%.

The practice had made improvements to the way in which people could access appointments. For example, a new telephone system, an additional person to work around the 8am rush for appointments, the recruitment of an additional 2 GPs providing an additional 12 sessions per week and an online total triage system. People who were unable to complete the online form could call the practice and a receptionist would complete it for them. Feedback from the GP Improvement Programme was positive about the improvements made by the practice on improving access to appointments.

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.

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 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. Reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs had been put in place. For example, ramp access to the electronic doors of the building, a lowered reception desk for wheelchair users, a hearing loop for people with a hearing defect and high-rise seats for people with mobility issues.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standards.

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. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation plans were in place where appropriate. 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.

Minutes showed that people nearing the end of their life were regularly discussed within the practice and as part of the wider multidisciplinary team. However, peoples’ records needed to be updated following these meetings. A member of staff told us this had slipped due to staff sickness and they would ensure this was completed.