Christchurch Family 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 assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

We observed evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. People were involved in decisions about their care. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People received fair and equal care and treatment. Requests for appointments were allocated based on clinical needs. The service understood their patient population. Changes were identified to improve the service where required.

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 placed people at the centre of their care and treatment, ensuring decisions were made collaboratively in response to changes in individual needs. Our review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported to understand their conditions and were actively involved in planning and decision-making regarding their care. We observed reception staff consistently treated patients with dignity and respect, offering choice, recognising and responding to their individual needs. Through regular appointments, staff developed meaningful relationships with patients and delivered care using a person-centred approach. Adjustments were made to support those with additional needs, including offering longer appointments for patients with a learning disability or other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

As an identified quality improvement project, specialist clinics were provided by clinicians who had particular interests, experience, and training. For example, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Skin Lesion, and Memory Dementia clinics. Patients benefited from improved access and continuity of care through the practice’s Specialist Clinics. These clinics increased appointment capacity from 12 to 18 per session, allowing patients with defined conditions to be seen more efficiently and consistently. Patients were pre-booked into appropriate slots, ensuring they saw the right clinician at the right time. By grouping similar cases together, clinicians were able to provide focused joined up care, streamlining integration across services and continuity of care, providing person centred care for the individual. Patients benefited from the practice’s strong collaboration with its Primary Care Network (PCN) partners (a PCN is a group of local GP practices that collaborate with other health and social care providers to deliver more integrated and accessible services to their communities), which enhanced access to services and improved flexibility in appointment times and locations. For example, patients could receive care closer to home and at times that suited them, including weekend appointments. Patients had access to a range of services through this partnership. For example, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV- a common virus that can cause serious illness in young children and older adults), COVID-19 and flu vaccinations, weekend NHS Health Checks, and tele-dermatology clinics with faster referrals. The practice also worked closely with local pharmacies to provide hypertension checks and contraception services, helping to streamline care and ensure patients received timely support.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community care homes. Feedback from 6 care homes, requested as part of our inspection, demonstrated that the GP practice maintained a strong, collaborative relationship with them, characterised by regular communication, responsive care and a multidisciplinary approach to resident wellbeing. Staff reported a positive and effective partnership with no current concerns.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff highlighted on the patients’ electronic record if they had any communication or accessibility needs. Interpretation services were available for people who did not speak English as their first language. Patient information could be provided in different languages upon request, including a British Sign Language interpreter. The practice incorporated a digital accessibility tool in their website to enhance accessibility and improve people’s experience. Patients knew to how to access their care records.

Patients were supported to be actively involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the importance of listening to people. The service made it easy for people to share their experiences or raise concerns. Information on how to provide feedback or make a complaint was clearly displayed on the practice website. Patients could raise concerns in person, in writing, or by email, and those who did were listened to and received a timely response. We reviewed a sample of complaints received by the service and found that they were handled in line with the provider’s policy and responded to appropriately. The practice had a dedicated member of staff who dealt with complaints. Complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared with staff to support continuous improvement. When things went wrong, staff apologised. Regular meetings were held to review complaints and ensure lessons learned were embedded across the team.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. However, some people told us they found contacting the practice difficult. The National GP Patient Survey (GPPS) 2024, identified contacting the practice by phone was difficult. 5.7 % of respondents said it was easy to contact the practice by phone compared with a national average of 49.7%. The percentage of respondents to the GPPS who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice was 39.5%, which was below the national average of 67.3%. The practice was aware of patient feedback regarding access and had reviewed its e-triage system. This prompted the practice to explore alternative providers to improve experience and accessibility of care. Patients accessed care through the practice’s digital triage system, eConsult, which was introduced a year ago. Patient information was reviewed by a multidisciplinary clinical team, including GPs based in the Hub, supported by an administrative team. Based on clinical needs, patients were offered a same day or a routine consultation or directed to appropriate services. The practice regularly reviewed the balance between routine and urgent appointments to ensure it met the needs of its patient population.

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, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mainly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. All staff had completed training in equality and diversity, and the practice had a policy in place. Interpretation services were available for people who did not speak English as their first language. Patients who were carers were listed on a carer register to receive additional support. Leaders sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. 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 people released from secure facilities. 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, by supporting people to use a laptop located at reception. To empower people with digital access to their health records, the practice sent explanatory text messages and videos that guided them on how to use the NHS app.

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. Staff attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss patients receiving end-of-life or complex care. Clinical records were updated to reflect any actions or changes made to their care plans. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care. Care plans documented a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision when it had been made. Families and/or carers had been involved in these decisions when the person lacked the capacity to make them independently. This information was shared with other services, such as the out-of-hours services, when necessary.