Hetton Group 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 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 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.

We spoke with 2 representatives from the 3 care homes where the practice had patients who were resident. Both services gave us very positive feedback about the practice being responsive to their requests for any aspect of their resident’s care.

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 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 had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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.

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 practice had a patient participation group (PPG). We spoke to some of the group’s members who told us the group had recently reconvened. They told us the practice listened to their views. They had suggested to the practice that patients should know about the specialities each of the GPs held at the practice. From this feedback the practice put this information on a TV which is in the reception area for patients’ information.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. The practice provided us with analysis of complaints in the last 12 months. This contained detailed information and actions and learning taken from them and any improvements made.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Data from the National GP Patient Survey told us the percentage of respondents who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 71.9% compared to the national average of 69.6%.

The practice recognised in 2024 that they had problems with access and continuity of care. They engaged with patients and staff to gain their views on how they could improve this.

The practice implemented eConsult (which is an online triage tool to submit medical or administrative requests through a GP website) and GP triage to help with access. This could be accessed online or for patients who found this difficult they could do this via telephone with the help of a receptionist. The focus was being on patients being able to access the most appropriate appointment as soon as possible with the right clinician, having regard for continuity of care where needed.

Feedback from staff and patients on this was that access had much improved. The PPG members told us at first, they found the eConsult difficult to navigate, however the appointment system had improved since this system was introduced. We saw data which showed that NHS 111 contacts from patients of the practice had reduced.

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 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.