Sunlight Group Practice Also known as Parkfield 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 assessed all quality statements from this key question. The rating given is Good.

The service delivered person-centred care and treatment, respecting and acting on people’s individual needs and wishes.

Staff provided information in accessible formats and discussed matters with people in their preferred language.

They worked to reduce health and care inequalities and performed well across all access indicators when benchmarked against other local practices and nationally. Staff offered continuity of care when needed or requested and provided longer appointments when necessary. The practice operated within the primary care network (PCN) and actively supported local service developments, both as part of the network and through individual staff interests. Specifically, they contributed to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services, care home ward rounds, and initiatives to improve men’s mental health through sport.

Staff provided information about how to raise a complaint, and they had investigated and documented the complaints we reviewed appropriately. They shared learning from complaints across the staff team, although only with those directly involved.

Although the premises were not purpose-built, the provider had submitted a bid for improvement. Staff made reasonable adjustments to ensure accessibility for patients requiring disabled access.

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 placed people at the centre of their care and treatment and worked in partnership with them to respond to any changes in their needs. Staff supported people to understand their condition and involved them in decisions about their care, treatment, and future planning. Feedback from people who used the service reflected this, with many stating they felt well informed and actively involved. 89% of patients who responded to the National GP Patient Survey said their needs were met at their last appointment compared to the ICS result of of 92% and National result of 91%. Additionally, 92% said the healthcare professional they saw had all the necessary information about them, compared with ICS result of 93% and the National result of 92%. Staff held regular multi-disciplinary meetings with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan care, ensuring people’s needs were met holistically. They consistently demonstrated a person-centred approach in their work. During our assessment, we observed staff engaging with patients in a kind and supportive manner. 82% of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey described the reception and administration team as helpful compared to the ICS result of 84% and the National result of 83%.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The staff team demonstrated improvement in culture following a period of instability after the merger. A wide range of medical, clinical, and trainee staff were available to provide continuity of care when required. However, the results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that only 32% of respondents confirmed they had seen or spoken to their preferred GP ICS result of 39% and National result of 40%. Staff reported that patients saw the same healthcare professional where appropriate.

Staff worked closely with multi-disciplinary professionals to address patients’ needs. Those we interviewed demonstrated familiarity with the patients who attended the practice. Staff made prompt referrals to other services and managed information received from external providers effectively and in a timely manner to support positive patient outcomes.

The practice tailored its services to the specific needs of its community and implemented measures to encourage attendance at follow-up appointments, national screening programmes, and childhood immunisations.

The provider collaborated with the Primary Care Network (PCN) to plan, develop, and deliver services across the locality. In winter 2024 two acute respiratory hubs operated across the Wirral, including one hosted by staff at the Sunlight Group Practice, to increase appointment capacity for patients with respiratory conditions. These hubs offered face-to-face appointments for adults and children following triage with an aim to reduce pressure on emergency departments and walk-in centres.

Staff communicated and provided information in ways that supported people to understand their care. They gave patients details about their health and treatment options to enable informed decision-making. Staff also presented information in the patient’s preferred language when required. The provider used systems to share patient information effectively across services. Staff offered safety netting advice to patients who were at risk of deterioration.

Feedback from respondents to the National GP Patient Survey showed that 84% understood their next steps within two days of contacting the practice, compared with ICS and National result of 83%. The practice accessed interpreter services to support patients who did not use English as their first language, and staff made information available in alternative languages when requested. Many of the medical staff and trainees spoke a variety of languages, enhancing communication with a diverse patient population.

The practice website provided NHS-approved information about health conditions and support services and included a language toggle to allow content to be viewed in other languages.

The practice made information available both on-site and online to inform people how to provide feedback about their care and support, including how to raise concerns, complaints, or issues. Staff reviewed feedback submitted through the NHS Friends and Family Test, which was mostly positive, and also monitored complaints received through formal channels. The practice encouraged patients to submit written complaints regarding their care, treatment, or support, and responded appropriately with full explanations and apologies where necessary.

Eighty-nine percent of patients who responded to the National GP Patient Survey stated that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment compared with the ICS result of 92% and the National result of 92%.

Reception staff explained how they handled concerns raised by patients on a daily basis and often resolved issues before they escalated. Staff recorded verbal feedback, although the practice did not consistently document outcomes or learning from this feedback. We discussed these missed opportunities with staff and leaders during the assessment, and they responded positively to our observations.

Patients who responded to the National GP Patient Survey also reported that healthcare professionals listened to them and had the necessary information during their most recent appointments.

The provider understood and acted on the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Staff used the patient record system to identify and respond to patients’ specific communication needs. The practice provided information in alternative languages and formats, including easy-read materials. Staff booked longer appointments for patients who required an interpreter, had a learning disability, or lived with complex long-term conditions.The provider aimed to ensure timely and easy access to care and treatment. Patients we spoke with did not raise concerns about access. Staff reported that most patients who requested same-day appointments saw a GP or were signposted to a suitable clinician or service. An on-call GP managed urgent appointment requests and we observed staff who had received training to direct patients appropriately.The provider monitored access effectively and made changes in response to patient feedback. In the National GP Patient Survey, 74% of respondents rated their overall experience of contacting the practice positively compared with the ICS and National result of 70%.The practice operated across two sites. 25% of respondents reported being offered a choice of location for their appointment, compared to the ICS result of 13% and the National result of 14%. Despite offering various appointment options, only 43% said they were offered a choice of time or day, compared to the ICS result of 51% and the National result of 54%. 49%find it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone compared to the ICS result of 52% and the National result of 53%. 41% found the website easy to use compared to the ICS result of 52% and the National result of 53% and 28% found it easy to contact the practice via the website or NHS App compared to the ICS result of 50% and the National result of 49%. The practice had reviewed the survey results and developed an improvement plan. The patient participation group contributed to this work, and a digital inclusion plan was in place.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about individuals most likely to experience inequality in care or outcomes and tailored support accordingly. They adjusted treatment to meet individual needs and promoted an inclusive, non-discriminatory approach to care.

Feedback from patients, both to the provider and to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), was mostly positive.

Staff ensured that people in vulnerable circumstances, including those experiencing homelessness, individuals in care settings, and those with drug and alcohol addictions, could register and access services. We heard examples whereby GPs had extended their care beyond contractual obligations to support these groups.

One GP had pioneered nationally and internationally recognised healthcare projects that transformed the delivery of mental health support in community and sporting settings. This GP also established the LEAP service (an integrated pathway combining secondary and primary care for ADHD assessment and review). Sunlight Group Practice became the first in the country to implement Qb testing, (a computer-based ADHD assessment tool). The LEAP service remains the singular primary care-led ADHD diagnostic and review model in England, streamlining assessment and medication management for adults with non-complex ADHD related needs. The model also included children and young adults, who transitioned directly into the LEAP clinic rather than facing waits in secondary care.

A tool had been developed that could be sent to patients with autism prior to appointments to allow them to communicate their needs for the appointment.

Another GP, with a special interest in addiction, created a community-based drug and alcohol rehabilitation service. They held two sessions per week at the centre, and all residents were registered with the practice for the duration of their stay, with continued care available afterward for those who remained in the area.

The practice affiliated with three residential and nursing care homes and conducted weekly ward rounds, providing immediate access to clinical staff to support residents’ needs.

Another GP with a focus on homelessness delivered regular outreach sessions within the homeless community and achieved positive outcomes for this population.

The provider monitored patient care and treatment data to ensure positive outcomes and inform ongoing service improvement.

People who used the service had received information that enabled them to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment.
Staff supported individuals to plan for their care, including discussions about end-of-life preferences and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The practice recorded these decisions and shared them with relevant services where appropriate to ensure coordinated care.

The practice held regular multi-disciplinary meetings to review the needs of people approaching the end of life. Staff used the Gold Standards Framework to identify individuals in the last year of life, which facilitated timely, coordinated, and proactive care planning.

The clinical team routinely reviewed the deaths of patients to evaluate whether end-of-life care had been well managed and whether shared decision-making had been achieved.

Care homes consistently provided positive feedback about the practice’s approach to end-of-life care, particularly regarding communication and support. This positive feedback was corroborated during the assessment.