Newport Medical Group

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 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. Staff were able to explain the key principles of 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. In the National GP Survey we saw that 72% of people felt that the service met their needs were met, and they felt the last appointment was either good or very good. This was in line with national averages.

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 the local community groups to promote the additional services such as flu injections.

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. The staffing group were diverse with multiple local languages and dialects spoken which reduced the need for external interpreters.. 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. 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 as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service did not always 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[SM1][SI2][SM3][SI4] of the patient participation group, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. The responses within the survey indicated only 30% of patients felt that it was easy to speak to the practice on the telephone. 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. [DH5]This was below the national average. However the provider has informed us that they have made changes in how people can access appointments. Patients can come into the surgery to book appointments and also book at the other branch surgeries and make calls there should their regular surgery be busy.

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 generally positive, with some negative feedback around waiting times for appointments. People told us that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. For example, they appreciated the services understanding of the local community and cultural barriers some in the community may face such as lack of English. 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. A patient told us that the social prescriber had supported them access support with finances that they did not realise they could access. This helped with mental health concerns by reducing stress. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and refugees. 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 interne

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.

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.