Spring Hill 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 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.

The service ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs. Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Results from the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey showed that 79% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment. The practice listened to patient feedback and used it to identify areas for improvement and, made appropriate changes to enhance the quality of care provided.

Non-digital routes for access were available for those who were digitally excluded or low literacy, which included telephone lines with the option to speak to a person, paper forms at reception and support offered for filling in online forms.

The practice used plain English in their letters and text messages, including explanations to confirm patient understanding and outline the next step.

The practice-maintained equality and diversity policies with staff in receipt of appropriate training.

The practice worked closely with community teams and a care home and held multi-disciplinary team meetings with mental health and social care teams.

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 supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information that was 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 practice offered hearing loop support, a chaperone service, a quiet room for confidentiality and a microphone on reception.

The practice staff told us they could offer large print, easy read and request braille, British Sign Language support, interpreters and language line services. They also offered email or text only responses, longer appointments and carer or advocate involvement.

The practice website had an accessibility statement and was compliant with public sector accessibility regulations and this meant alternatives were offered if patients could not use digital services.

Staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

We found people had multiple ways to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the National Patient Survey, and the practices own survey. When a patient submitted an online consultation, they could opt in to taking a short survey.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. The complaints policy was available on the practice website and included information for patients about how to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

According to the National GP Patient Survey data, 49% of patients responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice, which was below the national average of 75%.

During our assessment, we looked at the practice’s appointment system and could see that patients were able to book appointments that suited their individual needs. We saw that there were still appointments available that day for patients. Patients were able to book appointments over the telephone, in person and online. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community, the practice had taken action to make improvements.

They had reviewed capacity and demand to identify how many on-the-day appointments were needed in relation to pre-bookable appointments and built the rotas accordingly. Support was offered to patients with learning disability such as telephone and text reminders before appointments. The practice had upgraded their telephone system to incorporate a call back, digital messaging, online booking and triage functions. The transition from Total Triage to a Rapid Health Smart Triage system resulted in significant improvements in digital access.

Further response to the National GP Patient Survey results included designated follow up slots for test results, prebooked mental health follow ups, local adverts to educate patients on how to access the surgery efficiently and pharmacy first training for the receptionists. Leaders regularly monitored, audited and evaluated access to appointments. This included conducting their own patient survey to understand if the changes made had improved access. Whilst the provider had an action plan and had implemented changes until another survey is completed, we cannot be assured the access concerns had been fully addressed.

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. They understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

To ensure equitable access and high-quality care, the practice had implemented a number of measures. These included offering appointment types suited to the patient’s specific needs, including longer appointments for patients with multiple or complex issues, signposting to relevant services and support organisations and referring to the social prescriber to ensure preferred contact methods were recorded and followed. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.

Adjustments in place included access to sign language interpreters, translation services, hearing loop provision and coding. People’s communication requirements and preferred methods of contact were recorded to ensure no patient was disadvantaged due to language or communication barriers. The premises were suitable for patients with physical access needs.

Although the practice promoted the use of the NHS App and online consultation tools, staff recognised that not all patients could or wished to use digital systems. Alternative access routes were maintained, including telephone and in person contact.

The practice actively sought and acted on patient feedback regarding access through the regular Patient Participation Group (PPG) meetings, comments, surveys and both verbal and digital feedback channels to help identify themes and inform improvements to access.

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

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.