Sidley Medical Practice Also known as Dr Lawton & Partners

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

At a previous assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. We identified breaches of the regulations.

People reported below local and national averages for satisfaction with the service. People told us they had no confidence in the provider when they had raised concerns. Staff were not trained, supported or confident in meeting people’s needs. Staff reported feeling frustrated by the management team and partners who did not listen to them. There were no established or effective systems to meet patient demand or respond to changes placing people at risk of harm.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The National GP Patient Survey 2024 reported that respondents from the practice reported below the local and national levels of satisfaction. We found people were not assured of continuity of care. People told us they rarely saw the same GP. Staff confirmed patient preferences were not considered unless openly voiced by the patient at the time the appointment was booked. Female and male staff were available at the practice.

There were no established and effective processes for people to feedback on the service and care they received independently of the national GP patient survey or Friends and Family Test. Patients told us they did not have confidence in the provider to provide safe and effective care and treatment. They told us the partners were not present in the surgery or approachable to discuss concerns with. People who had raised concerns with the provider told us they had not felt heard by them and their experiences valued.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

There were no established and effective processes in place to monitor and respond to changes in patient demand for services and clinical risks. Staff told us they were unable to track if people had been seen as they were not all recorded on the single appointments system. We found appointments were moved forward to the following day on multiple occasions where assessments had not been reviewed and/or completed.

People reported being alarmed receiving telephone calls from clinicians late at night relating to their test results. For example, one person was called on by a clinician at 00:27 requiring them to contact the practice the following morning.

Patient satisfaction rates were below both the local and national averages recorded in the National GP Patient Survey 2024. People told us they experienced difficulties contacting the practice by telephone or via their website. We found people experienced long waits when contacting the service by telephone and had to listen to lengthy and confusing pathway options.

Staff used multiple appointment systems (online triage, on the day appointments and a separate triage list) that created inequalities in patient experiences. Reception staff had not been trained and did not have access to guidance or support to assist then to effectively assess patients’ clinical needs and prioritise/signpost them appropriately. For example, people who telephoned the practice or attended in person were not assessed using the same clinical triage tool as those who completed an online request. Staff told us patients were given appointments on a first come first served rule and they did not prioritise. Patients were not told a timescale for receiving a response to their enquiries.

There were no established and effective processes in place to ensure trained staff followed up and reviewed clinical referrals and results in a timely manner.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.