Hall Green 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 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 79 (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 was exceptional at making 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.

The practice proactively worked with the Travelling community, and we saw examples of a positive impact on health inequalities.

The practice received above average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 99% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally and 86% locally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 95% (compared to 87% nationally and 88% locally) said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

The practice 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. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice was able to provide consistency for people who used the service. Results of the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 55% of patients got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, compared to 40% nationally and locally. Staff worked with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and in a timely manner to support good outcomes for people.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services to support patients whose first language was not English, ensuring effective communication. It also used a range of communication channels, including social media, leaflets, its website, and engagement with the Patient Participation Group (PPG), to share information and updates with the community. The practice had processes in place to identify, record, and meet patients’ individual communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Relevant information was recorded and coded within the clinical system, with alerts used to ensure staff were aware of any specific requirements, enabling personalised care.

The service was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Feedback mechanisms included surveys, comment cards, and the PPG, with clear evidence of changes made in response to what people said. We reviewed a sample of complaints received by the service and evidenced they had been responded to and acted upon in a timely way in line with the providers complaint’s procedure. Complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared amongst staff to drive continuous improvement. Information about how to complain was readily available via the service website. Complaints were listened to and responded to appropriately and acted upon to improve the quality of care. Results from the GP Patient Survey showed the practice performed above the ICB average, achieving 97% for involving patients in decision-making.

The practice was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

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. People could access the service to suit their needs, for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

The service received above average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to access. The percentage of respondents were positive about their experience of contacting the practice was 87% (compared to 57% nationally and 53% locally) and 73% of respondents (compared to 68% nationally and 67% locally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. 70% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App (compared to 49% nationally and 53% locally). Friends and Family Test feedback was in line with the National GP Patient Survey results.

All patients were assessed by a trained care navigator and appropriately directed based on their clinical need. This included booking an appointment with the most suitable clinician, referral to a local pharmacy under the Community Pharmacy Scheme or signposting to Extended Access services.

In cases where all appointment slots were full, patients were added to a cancellation list and informed that they would be contacted if an appointment became available. If no appointment could be offered, patients were advised to attend a local walk-in centre or contact NHS 111 to ensure they would continue to receive appropriate care and support.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service 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. The practice was a Safe Surgery, ensuring that all patients could register without barriers to their healthcare. 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.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 94% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and 91% locally. 90% describing their overall experience of the practice as good, compared to 75% nationally and 78% locally.

Patients 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. We saw that staff understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making when patients were making decisions for their future care needs and had access to policies and advice to support them.

Care planning, including palliative care planning processes were embedded within the practice. We saw that the practice worked with patients, their carers, and other stakeholders to ensure that effective care was being provided. 

Staff told us how they worked with patients, and their carers, to support their understanding of their future care options. We saw that ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms were completed in line with guidance.