Mayfield 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

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 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.

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 supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered and alerts added to peoples care records.

The service demonstrated a flexible approach to the delivery of appointments. For example, staff accommodated people who were unable to attend the service at certain times due to caring responsibilities by offering alternative times helping to ensure that individual circumstances did not prevent people from accessing the service.

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 service promoted continuity of care by booking people to the same or named GP where possible. This often meant a longer wait for an appointment however, this was explained at the time of booking the appointment.

The service had a lot of long-standing staff both clinical and non-clinical which provided continuity and stability to the team.

We saw the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. The service 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 supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There were posters and leaflets displayed within the reception area providing information to support and encourage people to make healthier lifestyle choices.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The service 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.

The service held registers for several different cohorts of people, including those with learning disabilities, and people facing end-of-life care. They were regularly reviewed to ensure these people and their families were supported.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the services policy. All complaints were discussed at team meetings along with the learning from these events. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback, including complaints.

The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Surveys. They reviewed the feedback for any themes and trends as well as positive feedback to share with staff.

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

People could access the service to suit their needs for example, in person, online and by telephone.

Where clinically appropriate, individuals with higher levels of needs were offered longer appointment times to facilitate thorough care.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, by providing a touchscreen tablet computer in the waiting area for people to access the appointment booking system and for requesting repeat medication.

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

The service provided a responsive and flexible service for 7 local care homes. Care home staff reported they could easily contact the service for both routine and urgent concerns through a nominated telephone line number.

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 service 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 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.

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.

People’s decisions about what mattered to them had been reflected in personalised care plans and within their DNACPR forms.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We saw there were safeguards to ensure that decisions were made in a person’s best interest and when someone did not have the capacity to make their own decisions family members and carers were involved. This information was shared with other services when necessary.