Benfield Park Medical Group

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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Our review of clinical records showed that patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning their care. People told us they felt included in decisions and had the level of involvement they wanted. In the National GP Patient Survey, 92% of respondents reported being involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the ICS result of 92% and slightly higher than the national average of 91%.

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 provided appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Patients’ communication preferences were recorded at registration to ensure they received support in a way that suited them. Information promoting the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language, to support people who required assistance with communication. Information provided by the service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. The practice website was accessible and allowed information to be viewed in different languages.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback, offer ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were involved in decisions about their care, and the service informed them about any changes made as a result of their feedback.
Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. People could provide feedback through a variety of routes, including verbal comments, the Friends and Family Test, written complaints, and the National GP Patient Survey. A Patient Participation Group (PPG) was also in place, offering an additional forum for people to share views and influence service development.
There was evidence of learning from complaints, and staff were able to describe changes implemented in response to feedback from patients.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were able to contact the service by telephone, in person or online.
In the most recent National GP Patient Survey, 68% of respondents reported that it was easy to get through to the practice by telephone. This was higher than both the ICS result of 57% and the national average of 53%. In the same survey, 66% of respondents said it was easy to contact the practice using its website, compared with 53% across the ICS and 51% nationally. Additionally, 60% stated that it was easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, which again exceeded the ICS average of 54% and the national average of 49%.
The service reviewed staff rotas and ensured more staff were available to answer telephone calls during busy periods, which contributed to shorter call waiting times. The practice operated from a purpose built modern building that was fully accessible for wheelchair users.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in their experience or outcomes, and tailored care, support and treatment in response. Feedback from people using the service was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.
Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers that could affect people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to reduce local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made appropriate adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.
The provider had processes in place to ensure people could register with the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and Travellers. Staff used suitable systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or who did not have access to the internet.
 

Most 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. However, we did not always find the associated documentation in the records we reviewed, such as capacity assessments or other relevant supporting information that would normally accompany DNACPR decisions.