South Milford 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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The provider informed us they had made changes to their appointment system to try and improve access; however, some patients informed us they did not always find it easy to make appointments. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Latest results from the National GP Patients survey showed that 93% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice. This was above the local average of 86% and national average of 83%.

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.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had run engagement sessions that were attended by patients from their Patient Participation Group (PPG) and a Parish Councillor. They used these sessions to further educate patients on what kind of services were offered. This included what type of nursing appointments were available and explaining the role of advanced nurse practitioners.

The practice also worked with a local community centre which was attended by patients. The centre was used by the practice to provide information on what was available at the practice and show patients on how to use the NHS App.

The practice identified that due to a number of houses being built locally, they were getting more patients of a working age registering at the practice. They increased the amount of appointment times at a more appropriate time to meet their needs.

The provider worked with other practices within their Primary Care Network (PCN) to offer extended access, and flu and covid vaccination programmes.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey, showed 93% of patients reported that they understood what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice. This figure was higher than the local average of 86% and the national average of 83%.

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.

Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, they worked with their PCN to accommodate patients registering with.

The practice aimed to acknowledged complaints within 3 working days, followed by a thorough investigation. A review of complaints showed that complainants were acknowledged in a timely manner, and a thorough investigation was carried out. Outcomes were communicated to the complainant. If complainants were not satisfied with the response, they were signposted to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and other advocacy services. The practice conducted analysis of complaints to identify recurring themes and trends.

The service endeavoured to make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, feedback received directly to CQC was mixed on this. Some patients informed us that they found it difficult to access appointments however others told us that they did not have any issues obtaining appointments when required. Results from the latest National GP Patients Survey showed that the practice was in line with the local and national average on how easy it was to contact the GP practice by phone and the overall experience of contacting their GP practice. However, results were slightly under local and national averages for patients being offered a choice of time or day when they tried to make an appointment and whether they waited the right amount of time for their appointment.

A review of the practice’s appointment system showed that patients were able to book appointments for emergency appointments (appointments the same day), and urgent appointments (appointments within 3-5 days). However, for routine appointments some patients were having to wait around 3 weeks.. The practice had developed a robust system to efficiently and effectively triage patients. Staff were trained in care navigation and were able to effectively signpost patients to the most appropriate outcomes. A review showed a young patient being effectively triaged and a same day appointment was arranged. Staff were trained to look out for “red flag” symptoms such as potential signs of sepsis or meningitis. All patients were advised on what to do if their symptoms deteriorated.

Staff were able to signpost patients to the most appropriate pathway when required. This included the pharmacy first scheme, social prescribers and the local out of hours and minor injuries unit.

The practice was able to offer extended appointments for people with a learning disability or patients with comorbidities. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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.

The majority of feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Feedback received directly by CQC showed that patients were very positive about how staff treated them, with several praising staff attitudes as kind and caring.

We observed staff treat 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. For example, running sessions at a local community centre to show patients how to utilise the NHS App. 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. 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.

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.