The Glebe Family 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

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 service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 has remained 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. Where appropriate, carers and dependants were involved in the planning and making of shared decisions about the persons care and treatment.

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.

Staff described processes in place to ensure patients received coordinated care, including multidisciplinary team working when needed. Staff also discussed reasonable adjustments to support patients in accessing care and the ability to offer choices where possible.

Interpreting and translation services were used for patients whose first language was not English and for patients who used British Sign Language. Patient information leaflets and notices were available in the patient waiting area which told patients how to access support groups and organisations. Patients who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. There were processes in place to support patients with learning disabilities, allowing them to bring a carer or family member to their appointments. Systems ensured that patient’s individual needs for accessible information were identified and recorded.

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.

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 because of patient feedback.

We saw examples of changes made due to patient feedback. For example, introducing a call back option for patients telephoning the practice and reducing the length of the welcome telephone message.

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

There were established and effective processes in place to monitor and respond to changes in patient demand for services and clinical risks. There was a triage system to assist staff to appropriate prioritise people according to clinical needs.

In response to patient and PPG feedback, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, feedback indicated dissatisfaction with the previous Primary Care Network wide digital triage system, where central triage by another practice often resulted in appointments with unfamiliar GPs at different locations. In response, the provider had revised its approach to retain full oversight of all digital triage submissions from its registered patients. The provider told us this change ensured that appointments were allocated within the patient’s own practice, improving continuity of care and addressing concerns about being seen by unfamiliar clinicians.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the front door had ramp free access.

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 mostly positive highlighting quick access to appointments and exceptional service. Staff were described as efficient, caring, understanding and professional.

Some people told us they experienced difficulty seeing a GP and did not believe an appointment with an allied health professional was always appropriate, causing unnecessary delays to their diagnosis and treatment

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had established and effective processes to support people to 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.