Heaton Moor 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 has remained the same.

This service scored 79 (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.

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.

The service had an exceptional 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 work 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.

The service worked with a local asylum seeker hotel to offer health checks and vaccinations for individuals that had recently arrived within the service providers catchment area. The service worked with Serco to obtain details of residents and ensured adequate care and support is being afforded to this cohort of patients.

There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community and reaching out to other groups that faced health inequalities.

The service in the main supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs; however, we noted information to promote the take-up of screening and immunisation programmes was not available in any of the reception sites, and information was not displayed on the provider website. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

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 as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data 52.7% responded positively saying how easy it was to get through to the service via the telephone. The national average is 52.9%. The percentage of patients who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the service was 67.2% compared to the national average of 69.6%.

The service offered extended appointments for people with a learning disability or those requiring language interpretation services.

People could access medication information online as well as requesting or cancelling appointments, ordering repeat medications, registering as a new patient or obtaining test results or requesting sick notes.

From feedback we received directly from people who used the service, they told us that overall getting access to the service was good and they were happy with the time they waited to be seen.

There was a hearing loop in reception for service users requiring this.

Access for wheelchair users was appropriate with treatment and consultation rooms being available on the ground floor. Where there was a second floor a lift was available as required, however, patients with limited mobility would always be seen on the ground floor.

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 through Friends and Family tests 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, 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, Travellers and asylum seekers.

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.