The Calverton Practice

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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating is good.

People were involved in decisions about their care. 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. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were generally supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

To support this the practice operate a personal list system, meaning patients were generally able to consult with the GP they were registered with, enhancing personalised care as well as continuity of care. Patients also had the choice to choose a different GP if they wished to.

The practice told us about specific examples of person centred care such as purchasing specific equipment to meet the needs of one patient and a GP making an ad hoc home visit due to concerns about a patient they had not been able to contact.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreter and translation services and a hearing loop.

A range of information on aspect of health for all ages and local support groups was available in the practice and via the practice website. Health information leaflets were available.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) felt the provider took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. The practice held learning event meetings when events including clinical issues were discussed and learnt from. Information was disseminated to those who were not present at the meeting. Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority. The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. For example, following a complaint relating to a deceased patient the practice had added a pop-up box to patient records to identify more clearly when a patient had passed away.

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

In response to feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, a new telephone system to improve access to the practice and appointments.

The practice told us how they audited access to the practice and actions taken as a result. They were moving towards Care Navigator roles in the reception team to support staff to make sure patients accessed the right clinician or service through their first contact with the practice. The appointment system had been altered to balance the demand for on the day and pre-bookable appointments. The practice operated a triage and duty doctor system to increase efficiency and ensure patients were seen in a timely way.

The initial recorded message heard when calling the practice had been updated to give patients more options to make an informed choice to access the right care, for example the option of contacting a pharmacy for some conditions.

There were extended appointments for people with a learning disability and other complex needs. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person, by telephone or by post. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.

Staff supported patients who used translation applications on their phone to enable them to communicate effectively to access the service. Texting services and digital writing pads were also accommodated to enable equitable access.

National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the practice. Indicators showed 80% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, above the national average of 67%. In addition, 48% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, in line with the national average of 50%.

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 made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example extended hours appointments for workers, appointments at quiet times for vulnerable people and extended appointment times for complex cases. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

Home visits were made for patients not only because of limitations due to physical health but also due to barriers caused by mental health. 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. The practice were proactive in identifying patients approaching end of life and sensitive to their needs for advanced care planning.

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.