Welling Medical 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 inspection in September 2021, we rated this key question as Requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 68 (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 patients 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 patients’ 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 understood the diverse health and care needs of patients 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 patients and working in collaboration with health visitors to promote the uptake of childhood immunisations. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

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 patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients 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 and significant events was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. However, not all staff who worked at the practice felt the practice did enough to share learning amongst the team, especially if they were unable to be present during the practice meetings.

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

The provider offered double appointments for those who required additional time; for example, patients with a learning disability or whose first language was not English. Patients could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. However, data from the National GP Patient Survey showed the practice was below local and national averages regarding the ease of contacting the practice via their website (practice score: 36%, national average: 51%). Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. The practice had a designated area in the waiting room for wheelchairs to be positioned and the layout had given consideration to the needs of those patients.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. However, it was unclear what additional actions the practice had taken to ascertain the needs of their practice population.

Feedback provided by patients using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mixed in nature. Whilst some feedback was positive, others felt that certain staff members were dismissive and not fully understanding of their needs. Leaders worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities. However, it was not always evident they sought ways to address any barriers to improving patient’s experience. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in patients’ experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure patients could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. Staff used appropriate flags on their electronic clinical records system to highlight any communication needs of the patient and ensured that any patients who were known to be vulnerable were seen without delay.

Patients 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 patients were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.