Veor 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.
Clinical records reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Staff highlighted the importance of ensuring people’s communication needs were recorded, if the person required advocacy support, or what a person’s preferred title was and how people identify themselves, such as non-binary.
Leaders demonstrated awareness of individuals’ needs such as autistic people, who would benefit from continuity of care or appointments at quieter times of the day. The service had recognised they had a higher than average population of people who used MAKATON to communicate. As a result, staff had completed training in MAKATON to ensure these people could be appropriately supported using their choice of communication method, (MAKATON is a language program that uses signs, symbols, and speech to help people with learning or communication difficulties express themselves and understand others) and had easy-read or imagery available to support communication.
Our remote review of clinical records showed people 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 employed a social prescribing link worker who described their role as “seeing people as a whole” focusing on their overall wellbeing, rather than just specific health needs. (Social prescribing was for people who have one or more long-term conditions; need support with low level mental health issues; are lonely or isolated; have complex social needs which affect their wellbeing).

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.
The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. It had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, building relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of health screening programmes.
The service was aware of the other healthcare providers in the locality so people could be referred to these services where appropriate. These included a local primary care hub that provides appointments when GP services capacity is exceeded and the services within the local community hospital.
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The service has various ways to provide information to people that met their needs. For example, a television screen in the waiting room provided a variety of relevant information visually, such as how to access winter fuel credits. People were sent texts to provide information about support options available and information relating to their health conditions.
Information to promote the uptake of health screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.
The service made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Other adjustments included, double appointments (as appropriate), carer involvement, translated materials and use of translating services in written communications, as well as flexible communication methods.
Information about services provided to people and how people can access their clinical records was available on the service’s website.
 

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’s website contained information on how to provide feedback or make a complaint. People could raise concerns by phone, in writing, or by email. Records of complaints received by the service since the last inspection showed there was an effective system to ensure actions were taken, outcomes were achieved, learning was shared and duty of candour was completed.
The service completed its own feedback survey with people who used its services and monitored the results of this to improve quality of service provision. For example, only 44% of respondents said they were able to book an appointment that is convenient for them. In response to this figure, the service developed a plan to use additional technology to improve appointment booking so people could be seen at a time that was convenient to them. For example, text with appointment booking links. The service was reviewing data to monitor its effectiveness.
The service did not have an active patient participation group (PPG) since the previous PPG disbanded in 2022. The service confirmed it has a plan to reinstate it within 4 weeks and leaders of the service did recognise the need to diversify the representatives of the PPG and to include people from less represented groups such as neurodiversity.
Leaders actively engaged with people by using the community café as an opportunity to communicate, build connections and gain feedback.
 

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The service had assessed its population needs when considering access to the service. For example, when considering the use of digital services, the service planned digital drop-in sessions for people to educate them on how to use online services. Staff could also help people fill out forms for registering with the service.
Staff have been trained in MAKATON to communicate with people, and we were told by a staff member how they had used this skill to support someone. The service also used translation services and had developed easy-read appointment guides and signage in different languages.
The service had a high rate of people not attending scheduled appointments and had developed processes to ensure people received regular reminders of their appointments or could cancel their appointment with ease. The service had also introduced follow up calls for people who frequently do not attend their appointments.
In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. The service recognised the needs of the population and ensured people could access the service in a way that meets their needs. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability.
The National GP Patient Survey data showed slightly lower than average results for the percentage of people who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice. For example, only 67% of respondents said they had had a positive experience, while only 44% of respondents stated they found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone. The service was aware of this and had an action plan in place, working towards continually improving people’s access.
The service used a digital triage system and people could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. This ensured people were not excluded digitally.
 

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.
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 service, 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.
All staff had completed training in equality and diversity, and the service had a policy in place. Interpretation services were available for people who did not speak English as their first 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 remote review of clinical records 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.
The service had a register of people who were requiring end-of-life care which was monitored and care and treatment needs were discussed within a multidisciplinary team.