Sefton Ave Surgery Also known as Mulberry 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 practice 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice 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.

Alerts were added to patient records so staff could identify additional needs or preferences. The staff demonstrated patient involvement in their care and treatment, for example, in Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.

People with caring responsibilities were identified and supported. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals so they could access the most appropriate care.

The practice shared examples of initiative, for example a healthy hearts workshop, a peer support group established for patients from Black Afro‑Caribbean and South Asian backgrounds with a high blood pressure reading within the last year. The sessions provided a safe and supportive environment for shared learning and peer encouragement and focus on smoking cessation.

In addition, the practice had taken the initiative to participate in a fit for work pilot. The aim of the pilot was to support people to return to work or remain in suitable employment wherever possible, rather than defaulting to issuing a certificate declaring them not fit for work. This pilot had been developed in collaboration with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and the Work Well programme and is part of a national planned reform on issuing of sick notes.

The practice recognised the diverse health and care needs of their population. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other practices 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, Healthy hearts project, working with the local integrated care board to implement the Fit for work pilot.

Patients could book appointments online, through the online triage tool or by telephone. Longer appointments were offered to those with more complex needs. People in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

The practice was actively involved in their local Primary Care Network (PCN), where they worked with other GP providers to improve the local ICB delivery and provision of care services.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw health awareness posters available in the waiting area of each of the location which included sepsis.

The practice website contained details on how to make an appointment, and the services available. The practice had access to interpreter services including British Sign Language. Longer appointments were available to be booked if staff needed to use a translator, for neurodiverse people or people with a learning disability.

The practice partly complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), a requirement for all providers of NHS care. The AIS applies to people who use a service, and their carers or parents, who have information or communication needs because of a disability, impairment or sensory loss. Only one of the three sites had a hearing loop on the day of our site visits. The provider has since rectified this through the purchasing of hearing loops for the sites where no hearing loops were in place.

Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed that only 37% found it easy to contact this GP Practice using their website. This result was lower than the local average of 55% and national average of 53%. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 84% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last appointment. This result was lower than the local average of 91% and national average of 92%.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Information about how to complain was available in practice waiting areas. The practice’s website provided clear information about how patients could make a complaint or share feedback. This included a link to a complaints leaflet, which explained the complaints process and what patients could expect if they raised a concern.

People could share their thoughts with the practice by completing an online feedback form on their website. People were also invited to share their suggestions to improve how the practice operates or manages its services by completing an online NHS Friends and Family Test Feedback Form.

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 as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The practice demonstrated responsiveness to patient feedback. Patient concerns regarding access and appointment availability led to the introduction of a total triage tool. The practice had undertaken a staff wellbeing survey and was able to provide analysis of the results. In terms of overall experience 58% of patients who responded to the National GP patient survey described their experience of this GP practice as good, compared to local average of 73% and national average of 75%.

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

People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. All appointment requests were considered through the total triage system facilitated by a team of reception staff and clinicians. The practice had extended appointments for people with a reasonable adjustment. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. Disabled toilet facilities were accessible.

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.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. Digital flags were added to clinical notes for vulnerable people, including families needing extra support, which enabled staff to adapt care to suit their needs.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities.

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 reviewed showed people were supported to consider their wishes for the end-of-life care including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.