Torrington Park Group 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 all staff treated the patients without discrimination. At our last assessment in October 2023 using the old methodology, we rated this key question as requires improvement due to low GP patient survey data. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

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 practice assured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and care plans were developed together with people in response to their changing needs. The care plans at the practice were written by the GPs. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their conditions and involved in the planning and decision-making process.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other service to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, working with the Primary Care Network (PCN) to help improve the uptake of cervical screening amongst Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups, where they have been proactively contacting and booking patients with a Primary Care Network (PCN) nurse. We noted this had increased the capacity for appointments. The practice had also changed the time of baby clinics so that the practice nurse could run immunisation clinics at the same time to avoid multiple appointments and increase uptake. A clinical administrator was appointed to focus on improving quality outcomes for patients with an emphasis on improving targets for the various immunisation and screening programmes. Unverified data, provided by the practice, showed an improvement on the published cervical screening and childhood immunisation programme data.

The practice ensured that the patient population had access to information that was beneficial to their health. The practice provided access to interpreters, signers (British Sign Language) and a hearing loop. The staff listened to the patients to get information that assisted in providing care and signposted them to the right services where necessary. 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. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what changed as a result. The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) who met regularly to engage with practice staff. Positive feedback was provided regarding services provided to care homes. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback.

The service did not always make sure that people could access care, support and treatment needed when they needed it.

The National GP patient survey data (01/24 to 03/24) showed that the practice had areas that needed focusing on to improve access. The results showed that 48% of respondents were positive about the overall experience of contacting the practice which was below the expected average of 67%. Thirty five percent of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone which was below the expected average of 49%.

The practice was aware of these survey results and had put an action plan in place which included the installation of a new telephone system, which allowed patients to receive a call back, extra staff to manage the telephones at peak times and opening the telephone lines at 7am instead of the previous time of 8am. Improvements had also been made to the online booking system to make this easier to navigate.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

Staff were trained on equality and diversity, and patients were known to staff which helped to provide the right information and support to meet their needs. Feedback from patients using the service to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) was positive. Staff were described as very kind and helpful. Priority appointments were available for patients who needed them. Patients who were eligible were encouraged to attend health checks and reviews. Continuous training helped the practice to stay relevant to people’s needs and provide patients with support.

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 worked collaboratively with other healthcare providers to support patients with end of life care. The patients were added to a high risk register and the district nurses were actively involved in their care. Care records or information was shared through the clinical system. The DNACPR records were reviewed regularly by the practice and updated according to the Mental Capacity Act. Care plans were updated according to the changing needs of the patient. The wishes of the patients were respected.