The Vale Surgery

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Policies were in place to promote person-centred care, and all staff had received equality and diversity training.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. There was an active PPG who represented the views of people using the service. Representatives from the PPG described how managers made positive changes because of feedback, such as the triage system. This system supported staff to assess the urgency of patients’ needs and ensure they were directed to the most appropriate clinician, which helped ensure timely and person-centred access to care.

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. For instance, the practice worked closely with community teams such as social prescribers, pharmacists, care home staff, and the Primary Care Networks (PCNs) to provide coordinated care tailored to local needs.

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 in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 94% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last appointment, which was in line with the local and national averages of 91% and 92%, respectively.

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. There were processes in place informing patients on how to complain. We reviewed the current complaints log and saw that complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. We found people had different options to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test and the national GP patient survey.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The main site was fully accessible making it suitable for patients with mobility difficulties or those using wheelchairs. Face to face, online telephone appointments and home visits were available either as urgent or routine. Patients were able to book appointments in advance, and the service promoted the use of the NHS App.

However National patient survey feedback indicated that patients did not always receive the care, support, and treatment they needed in a timely way. For example, 30% find it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, compared the average locally and nationally of 53%. 54% describe their experience of contacting their GP practice as good compared the average locally and nationally of 68% and 70%. Additionally, only 36% find it easy to contact this GP practice using their website compared the average locally and nationally of 50% and 51%.

Staff reported that language barriers and confidence with surveys or digital systems may have influenced response rates. However, they also recognised that the survey results highlighted real challenges for some patients in accessing care. The most significant differences from national averages were seen in telephone access, ease of using the website, and experiences with reception.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service, including better telephone systems like call backs and peak-time staffing, improved reception through additional customer service training, clearer and more user-friendly online services, stronger communication with patients about next steps after appointments, and more regular review of patient feedback to spot issues early.

Staff told us that the reviews had improved and reflected positive experiences of listening, care and clinical quality. NHS Friends and Family Test and patients feedback also indicated improvements in the phone system and queue updates, although difficulties in booking appointments remain.

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. The practice took a proactive approach to identifying barriers by using clinical system alerts, patient records, and feedback to highlight patients who may have difficulty accessing care.

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. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. There was access to social prescribers to help patients access appropriate support including those who may experience inequality or poorer outcomes. 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.

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. Clinicians followed a clear process for adding patients to the register and for recognising early signs that someone might require end‑of‑life support.

Once identified, patients were placed on relevant registers, and their care needs regularly reviewed to ensure personalised support. Information was clearly documented and shared within the practice to support consistent, coordinated care. The practice also worked collaboratively with external services, such as community teams, palliative care services, and care homes, to ensure aligned care.