Woolpit Health Centre Also known as Dr Pearson & Partners

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.

The practice had arrangements in place to support person centred care. Clinical staff told us during consultations they discussed relevant information, listened to people’s concerns and expectations, identified people’s needs and preferences and agreed a plan of care together which suited the person.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 and immunisation programmes. Staff spoken with told us they worked to engage with hard-to-reach communities.

GP Patient Survey Feedback and Friends and Family feedback was mainly positive regarding care provision. People could request to see a GP of their choice although there may be a longer wait.

Partner agencies gave positive feedback on collaborative working for the benefit of people who used the service.

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

Staff members were trained in the Accessible Information Standard and information provided by the practice met this standard. Staff recorded information on people’s clinical record, to support their communication or access needs. Staff told us interpreter services were available which included British Sign Language. Information was available to advise people how to access their clinical record.

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.

GP Patient Survey data regarding whether the last health care professional seen was good at listening was in line with the national average. A representative from the Patient Participation Group told us the practice engaged with them and responded to feedback, making changes where appropriate and possible.

Information about how to make a complaint was available at the service and on its website, including details of the complaints process and how to escalate concerns. We reviewed a log of complaints and found they were managed in line with the practice policy.

An annual review of complaints and compliments was completed to identify trends, share learning and implement improvements where necessary. Leaders recorded, reviewed and shared positive feedback and compliments with staff.

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

Appointments were available on weekdays, between 8am and 6pm. Enhanced access routine appointments were available until 8.30pm on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and from 8am to 11am on Saturdays.

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 amended their appointment system to ensure all requests were put through their online appointment and triage system. This ensured all requests were reviewed and appointments allocated on an equitable basis and according to identified need. Although people could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone all approaches resulted in the online form being completed.

The practice was responsive to the needs of people who were too ill or physically incapable of travelling to the practice and offered home visits. Staff told us people with the most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised. Leaders made regular checks to ensure appropriate triage and prioritisation decisions were made. The practice had a triage hub where duty GPs were available every day for advice and support, as necessary. Additionally, the practice had introduced a mentor who was also available in the hub to provide advice and support to other staff members.

There were arrangements in place to review appointment utilisation data, to maximise the use of appointment times and ensure unused appointment times supported other clinical work or staff learning.

The main entrance had automatic doors. All consulting and treatment rooms were on the ground floor, and a hearing loop was available.

Practice leaders knew the demographics of the people registered at the practice which included for example, age, diversity, deprivation and economic factors which impacted the health needs of their population. 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 was positive. 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.

The service maintained a register of people with palliative care needs. Regular multidisciplinary (MDT) team meetings where people who were receiving palliative care were discussed and reviewed, as appropriate. Discussions and actions were added directly to people’s clinical record.

The service had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) policy. This included arrangements for example, for when these should be considered, information sharing, record keeping and audit, and reviewing decisions. People were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, which included cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Our review of this process showed decisions were appropriate and made in line with relevant legislation. The service shared this information with other services, when necessary.