Brigstock Medical Centre Also known as Brigstock and South Norwood Partnership

On this page

• Overview
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes

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 69 (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 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 told us they had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, and tried building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. However, we did not see any tangible evidence of this.

The service did not always supply up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language and online translation services. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was not available in a range of languages or formats. Despite the practice acknowledging that low rates were due to hesitancy from certain groups of patients, we saw no evidence of information or educational information to increase uptake and knowledge.

The service made sure that 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. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. Longer appointments were also available to for patients in general if the GP felt this was needed. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. All appointments were “book on the day” and patients could see the same GP for continuity of care. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. The entrance was level access so accessible to wheelchair users and those with pushchairs. An 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. 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 adjusted 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. For example, the practice had registered over 200 people of no fixed abode, with the practice within the past 12 months.

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.