Village 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

The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 75 (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.

People could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service make reasonable adjustments where necessary. This included the use of longer appointments if needed.

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 practice understood the history of the local community particularly as a coal mining area and actively engaged in a regional research project on lung disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. This involved in-depth reviews of relevant patients, targeted clinics and meetings with patients. Patients met with smoking cessation groups, instructors on the use of inhalers, vaccination groups, exercise groups and educators on self-management alongside conversations with clinicians.

The service 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 including their legal rights and the practices responsibilities.

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 because of patient feedback, including complaints. This included better use of digital sign-in screens and signage for clinical rooms.

The care homes we spoke highly about the ‘personal touch’ they felt they received from the practice, with bespoke contact pathways and engagement from senior leaders. When feedback had to be given on processes, they felt listened to and action was taken promptly.

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

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. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. 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. The practice had a lift also for those patients who needed it.

The practice wanted to maximise the use of digital systems, like the NHS app, where possible. Particularly those systems of benefit to patients and staff in terms of access and efficient care. The NHS app was also one of the central planks of the NHS 10-year plan. Administrative staff assisted patients in setting up the application for those who needed it. The practice made sure other processes were in place for those who didn’t have access to digital systems.

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 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, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and to adjust this to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The practice had a zero-tolerance policy, and we heard from leaders’ examples where this had been enforced.

The practice was also honest with patients when they asked for changes, whether by feedback or through the PPG (patient participation group) if it wasn’t a feasible option. For example, changes to the car park outside the practice.

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

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.