Little London Surgery

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 75 (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.

Patients physical, mental, emotional, and social needs were identified as part of a person-centred approach, this included the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records identified patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in the process with clinicians deciding the best course of care and treatment.

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 found that the provider worked in partnership with other services to meet people’s needs. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its local population, for example, building relationships within its local community to help the take up of screening programmes. For example, bowel and cervical screening programs and immunisations.

The provider told us where possible patients could see the same clinician to help with the continuity of care and treatment.

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

We found the provider had access to interpreting services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw a range of information displayed within the reception area to support people in a range of areas. For example, there was a welcome board and other information on display; diabetes care, cervical cancer and the role of a social prescriber to name just a few. The provider also had a website where there was also information to aid patients on several areas like mental health advice and a range of services they provided.

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 that the provider had a complaints and compliments policy in place and maintained a log to record when these were received, and the actions taken to respond to and learn from complaints.

Learning from complaints was important to the provider and we were able to see where improvements were made because of patient’s views.

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

Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 51% of respondents found it easy to contact the provider via their website, which was in line with the national average and higher than the local average of 46%. However, 38% of respondents found it easy to contact the provider by phone, which was below the national average of 48% and in line with the local average of 38%. Overall, 78% of patients described their experience of accessing the service as good. This was above both the national average of 75% and the local average of 71%. The provider told us patients could access the service to suit their needs online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic doors at the entrance to the building and from the reception area to where patients could see clinicians. All services were located on the ground floor, so patients did not have to use the stairs or a lift.

We saw that arrangements were in place so where patients could not use the reception desk due to their height that there was another reception area that could be used much lower down. For example, someone using a wheelchair. Staff told us they liked working for the provider.

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. 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. There were processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. We saw patients could give feedback on their experiences using the service, including those who spoke a different language.

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.

We saw patient records where they had made choices as to their end of life. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) records were reviewed, and we saw that patients were involved in these decisions.