Wickham Park 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 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. 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.

Care coordinators were assigned to specific patient groups to make targeted calls to patients, particularly those with learning disabilities, who they felt benefitted from consistency with the same clinician. For example, a paramedic visited a learning disability care home weekly, seeing 2 patients per visit.

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 was in an area where their patient population crossed over two London boroughs. GPs demonstrated knowledge of the differences between the care they provided for patients from both areas and planned for and responded in line with the diverse needs of each section of society.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, we saw strong partnership working with community pharmacist and health visitors. 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. Their website had information about services that were available such as how to book appointments, request repeat prescriptions and eConsult (a digital, 24/7 online service allowing NHS patients to submit symptoms, administrative requests (like fit notes), or health queries to their GP via a secure web form). The information on the website was up to date and instantly available in over 90 languages including many European, African and Asian 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. National GP Patient Survey data showed that 85% of patients said they knew what the next steps would be after contacting the GP practice.

We saw 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. Staff shared an example with us of a complaint relating to a referral. We saw that the complaint was responded to and learning shared. The learning included GPs agreeing to make changes to the referral process to reduce the chance of this occurring again.

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, the practice manager told us they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability, complex medical needs and mental health issues.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were all on the ground floor and accessible. There was a ramp at the entrance and at the rear of the building to make it easy to access for wheelchair users and prams.

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.

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. An example of an initiative they took to improve health inequalities was work they carried out around the rising prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in their patient population. Their clinical pharmacist reviewed all records of patients suspected of CKD. All patients were offered an opportunity to test and then re-test to monitor their functioning. They were also working with the primary care network on the BP@Home project. This was an initiative to increase availability and access to home blood pressure monitoring for patients with hypertension. This was an attempt to reduce inequalities in health resulting rom CKD events due to uncontrolled blood pressure.

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. There were currently eight patients who were either homeless or travellers, registered with the practice. These patients could use the practice address to get correspondence from for example, secondary care services. They also ensured they provided token prescriptions (paper printouts, often with a barcode, issued by GPs alongside Electronic Prescription Service) so they could collect prescriptions from any pharmacy.

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. The practice maintained a palliative care register and monitored it regularly. Information was shared with other services when necessary. We saw example of their liaison and regular meetings with hospice care providers and district nursing for patients receiving palliative care.