Manor Field 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

At our previous assessment responsive was rated as outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed from outstanding to good. We found that some of those elements previously regarded as outstanding practice were now embedded throughout the majority of GP practices. Whilst the provider had maintained this good practice, the threshold to achieve an outstanding rating overall had not been reached.

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 and acted on it. Following the implementation of a total triage model, the service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. For those that couldn’t use the online booking request at home were able to use a tablet that was available in the reception area, alternatively reception staff were able to fill out requests on behalf of patients over the phone if they could not reach the practice or had access to the internet. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their 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 people’s 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 were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Data from the latest National GP Patient survey showed that the practice achievement was in-line with local and national averages for how involved patients were in decisions about their care and treatment.

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 in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, they had developed questionnaires designed to target patients that were overdue cervical cancer screening to find out what barriers were stopping them from receiving the screening. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice had worked with the local cancer alliance organisation; there were tote bags available for patients at the practice that contained information on recognising symptoms and what support was available.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

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

Latest results from the National GP Patient survey showed that 84% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice. This was marginally above the local and national average of 83%.

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 evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, refresher training was provided in order to maintain a high level of professionalism when dealing with patient requests.

The practice aimed to acknowledged complaints within 3 working days, followed by a thorough investigation. A review of complaints showed that complainants were acknowledged in a timely manner, and a thorough investigation was carried out. Outcomes were communicated to the complainant. If complainants were not satisfied with the response, they were signposted to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and other advocacy services.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Our review found that the practice very recently changed to a total triage model. Although, when this system was first implemented there were some small delays for patients while issues were dealt with, as the system became embedded the service was able to manage their capacity more effectively and as a result provide more appointments for patients. All patient requests were triaged by a clinician to ensure that people with immediate needs had access to services.

A review of the practice’s appointment system showed that patients were able to easily submit requests online. Requests were sent through an AI platform which colour coded them on how urgent they were (red, amber and green). All requests were triaged by a GP within the same day. If a patient had any “red flag” symptoms they were instructed to contact 999. The practice’s preferred method for patients to contact was using the online platform, however, for those patients that were not able to do this, reception staff were able to fill out a request on a patient’s behalf over the phone. The practice had also procured a tablet that was permanently available for patients to use in the waiting room to fill out requests.

The latest results from the National GP Patient survey showed that the practice had achieved in-line with local and national averages for how easy it was to contact the practice by phone (54%, local average 50%, national average 53%) and using their website (44%, local average 48%, national average 51%). The provider hoped that the impact the new total triage model had made would improve these scores when the survey was next conducted.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door 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. Feedback received directly by CQC showed that patients were positive about how staff treated them, with several praising staff attitudes as kind and caring.

We observed staff treat 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.

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. Data supplied from the local ICB showed that the provider had achieved the highest rate of completed ReSPECT forms.