Dr Nederlof and Partners Also known as Riverside 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 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 practice made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patients had access to appointments provided by a variety of clinicians including GPs, nurses, healthcare assistants and additional support via their primary care network (PCN). 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 understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its local population. The practice recognised the importance of continuity of care for patients. National GP Patient Survey data reflected this. 69% of the respondents said they usually got to speak to or see their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to. This was higher than the local (42%) and national (40%) averages. Feedback we received off patients was also very positive. Patients told us they got to see their named GP and if they had to see another GP urgently then their named GP would follow up with them afterwards. Patients told us they appreciated the continuity of their care as the GP understood their needs. The practice told us that this continuity of patient care continued even if the patient moved into a care home. The named GP would stay with the patient rather than the practice overseeing all the patients. GPs told us they found this beneficial as they understood their patients and their health and care needs.

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, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice ensured patients who had a learning disability were able to receive information that they could easily read or understand. For example, the invites for patients annual learning disability health check were in an easy read format which included pictures detailing step by step what would happen during their appointment. Dispensary staff also told us that they could provide information and leaflets in a range of fonts and sizes. The practice kept patients informed of waiting times. In reception, there was a board to make patients aware of the clinicians waiting times to inform them of any delays to appointments.

The practice 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 most complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints and compliments was evident and this was shared with staff. Staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback. For example, patients found it difficult speaking and hearing through the small hole in the hatch in the dispensary. As a result, the practice removed this which enabled patients to be able to easily speak to the dispensary team. Patients told us they felt the practice was open and honest and they felt listened to.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The practice offered on the day and pre-bookable appointments. Call waiting times were regularly monitored and reviewed so the practice could make changes if needed such as having more staff answering telephone calls. 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 worked with their PPG to make changes to their website. They also recognised the importance of supporting patients to use the NHS App, so they highlighted it on their website, on practice noticeboards and on the digital screen in the waiting room.

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 positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and asylum seekers. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, the practice had patients who were staying in a hotel for asylum seekers. They allowed the hotel to have a direct telephone line to the practice which enabled them to be prioritised in the telephone queue.

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. Quarterly multi-disciplinary team meetings took place to discuss patients using the prognostic indicator tools to support earlier recognition of patients nearing the end of life. The practice also held weekly meetings to discuss new, deteriorating or changes in palliative patients and any updates.