Bridgeway 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 service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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. 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. Clinicians spoke highly about effective signposting by the reception team; they felt people were directed to the right clinician the first time, which enabled them to provide effective person-centred care.

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 service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Staff told us they had access to services for translating documents into appropriate languages, including into English. A hearing loop was also available. 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 routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Complaints reviewed showed the practice responded to feedback appropriately, openly and in a non-defensive manner. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service had recently introduced total triage for appointments and requests, whereby people telephoned or submitted their request online. GPs were responsible for triaging the information. People were offered an appointment appropriate for their assessed need or directed to an alternative service. People who required routine appointments outside of the usual working hours had access to evening and weekend appointments. These appointments were booked on behalf of people by the service. Housebound people were offered home visits for consultations, blood tests and foot checks.

National GP Patient Survey data and the majority of feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the practice. Indicators showed 76% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice which was above the national average of 67%. In addition, 62% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, this was above the national average of 50%.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and people from travelling communities .

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. For example, the out of hours services and other health care professionals involved in the care of this group of people.