Whitley Road Medical Centre

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 82 (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 that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The service ensured that the individuals specific needs, values and preferences were being met by listening and working with these individuals.

The service worked closely with people to understand their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Individuals were encouraged to be actively involved in their care and making decisions about treatment plans and options available to them.

The service worked collaboratively with individuals ensuring that the individual was being treated as an equal partner.

The service respected individuality and understood that a one size fits all treatment approach did not work.

Individuals told us that they felt heard and listened to by the service provider and that they felt they had better health outcomes due to this approach. People told us that they had an increase in independence and some had managed to get parts of their lives back that had been lost.

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 had an exceptional understanding of 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 community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service worked with local support groups as well as charities to support individuals’ mental health and overall wellbeing. The practice facilitated events and promoted these to the people that used the service.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information leaflets within the waiting area were appropriate and there was a good stock available. Information covered many NHS initiatives including stopping smoking and information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes. The information was available in a range of languages.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records. People were shown how to access information on the NHS App and how to navigate 111 online to view information on how to care for themselves with minor ailments or during out of hours.

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.

The service listened to what people had to say to them and involved them in decisions about any changes that the service was planning.

Using the friends and family tests was another way to gain feedback from people and the feedback we saw was positive.

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.

We looked at complaints over the last 12 months and there was only one received. The complaint had been handled and processed appropriately, and the correct outcome had been shared with the complainant concerned.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were a number of appointments available on the day, as well as non-urgent appointments for future dates.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data 70% responded positively saying how easy it was to get through to the service via the telephone. The national average was 50%. The percentage of patients who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the service was 79% compared to the national average of 67%.

The provider had identified and implemented changes to improve access to the service following feedback. They had extended appointments for people with a learning disability or those requiring interpreter. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Following feedback from the PPG there were changes made to how to order repeat prescriptions. This was being completed online by people who had access. For people struggling with technology or with no internet / computer access then repeat prescriptions could still be requested over the phone or face to face within the practice. The reduction in calls requesting repeat prescriptions allowed the reception / administrative staff to concentrate on answering calls for appointments.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. The baby change facility near to main entrance was heated and warm upon entry. There were items within the room to facilitate changing nappies.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored 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 positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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 internet.

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.

Relatives were involved in these discussions as much as people wanted them to be. The provider took into consideration the mental capacity of individuals when it came to making these informed decisions.