Archived: Langstone Way 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 assessed a total of 4 quality statements from this key question. We looked for evidence that the surgery met people’s needs, and whether patients could easily access services. At the last inspection held in August 2023, we identified that the surgery required improvement relating to how patients accessed services at this location. This assessment identified that further improvements were needed to address on-going patient concern about access to services. This key question has been rated as requires improvement at this assessment. This is because patient feedback demonstrated patients did not find the surgery easy to access, that reception staff did not always show care and concern when they had interactions with the surgery and that their overall experience with the surgery was not always positive.

Our last assessment for this provider in 2023 we rated the provider as Requires Improvement for key question of Responsive. At this assessment, the rating for this key question remains the same.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The majority of the patient feedback we received in the two weeks prior to our assessment indicated that their individual needs (were in the main) considered, and that healthcare professionals listened to and treated them with care and concern. Patient feedback via the 2024 national GP Patient Survey (GPPS) indicated 71% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last appointment. This was below the local average of 83% and national average of 85%. GPPS feedback also showed 42% of respondents find the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful. This was below the local average of 79% and the national average of 83%.

The GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 119 responses. This found 83% of patients stated the health care professional (they interacted with at their last consultation) had the required information they needed about them.

The provider and staff told us they offered reasonable adjustments and took people’s individual preferences into consideration during appointments and when providing information. For example, providing information in formats to help patients understand their care, treatment and conditions as well as having access to interpreters.

The surgery complied with the Accessible Information Standard, but we did not see that staff had undertaken any training relating to this. The surgery website was available to as wide an audience as possible and included accessible online tools such as translation and the ability to change font size.

We did not look at processes as part of this quality statement. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The surgery had identified ways for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The surgery had a patient participation forum and reviewed data from friends and family test. The surgery had received 76 complaints between September 2023 to September 2024. We examined a sample of complaints and found all had been managed satisfactorily and in a timely manner. We observed a response to a complainant which provided further information for the patient about whom to contact if they were unhappy with the surgery’s response. Information about how to complain was available in the surgery and on the surgery’s website. We viewed three sets of all staff meeting minutes and identified that complaints were a standing agenda item in these meetings. However, there was no evidence that complaints were discussed at these meeting as none of the meeting minutes we viewed referred to any complaints received, what action had been taken and by whom, what the outcome of the complaint was and the sharing amongst staff of any learning gained because of complaints received.

The surgery informed us that they worked closely with their patient participation group (PPG) to integrate suggestions made by patients either by feedback directly to the PPG and/or patient feedback received directly to the surgery.
 

The surgery did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The GPPS carried out from January to March 2024 had 134 responses from patients registered at the surgery. The survey found 23% of patients had a fairly to very good experience of contacting the practice, 42% found the reception staff fairly to very helpful and 8% found contact through the website fairly to very easy and 11% of patients found it fairly to very easy to contact the practice by phone. All scores achieved by the surgery ranged from comparable to or below the average percentages achieved by both local and national practices/surgeries for the same questions. We spoke with the surgery’s leaders about the surgery’s attainment score in the GP national patient surgery but was told that no analysis of the published survey had been undertaken, and therefore no action plan had been devised to improve access to services at the surgery for patients.

The surgery told us that it did not conduct its own internal patient survey to gauge the views of its patients, but it did collate and monitor responses from its friends and family test (FFT) monthly. We viewed the FFT results for the six months prior to this assessment and identified that 335 out of 524 patients who had completed the FFT indicated that the surgery was good or very good.
 

The surgery did not always act in a timely manner on information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Although the national GP survey for 2024 does not request a response from patients who are specifically experiencing inequalities, the results for the patient’s experience of contacting the practice, whether reception staff were helpful and whether contact through the practices website and phone were easy, were below both the national and local targets.

The practice had implemented priority lists based on patients on-going health conditions and vulnerability.

The surgery had not reviewed the results of the 2024 published national GP survey and we noted that there were a high number of complaints received by the surgery which related to difficulties when attempting to book appointments at the surgery, which potentially could affect outcomes for patients.

The surgery did offer longer appointments for patients with complex needs and older people and supported a local nursing home. Patients who were unable to leave their homes were reviewed opportunistically when they contacted the surgery for an appointment.

The surgery had implemented priority lists based on patients on-going health conditions. These lists were in place to ensure that the surgery’s most vulnerable patients were able to access care in a timely manner. Patients who were receiving end-of-life care and the very elderly were top of the priority list, which allowed these patients to see a clinician on the day they called the surgery.

Patients classified as vulnerable (such as new mothers, those with mental health conditions and those with physical and/or learning difficulties) were included within these priority lists.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.