Valentine Medical Centre

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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed.

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.

Valentine Medical Centre 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.

Valentine Medical Centre had a very good understanding of 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, by holding health promotion open days. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Valentine Medical Centre 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 practice listened to their views and were open to their feedback and had used it to make positive changes to the 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.

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

In response to feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they routinely provided extended appointments for people with learning disabilities or complex linguistic and communication requirements. 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 a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

Action to improve access included, reasonable adjustments as required for patients where on-line services could not be used; the service has extended its opening hours to provide more appointments to patients.

National GP survey date showed 80% of patients ‘felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment’ which was higher than the national average of 67%.

The practice carried out home visits where required.

There were sufficient consulting and meeting rooms to meet the need of the patients, such as providing additional privacy if needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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 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 experiences and outcomes.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

We saw that 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. People described being given time to discuss important decisions about treatment and care.

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.