Alexandra 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 carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive and found: Patients’ response to the national GP survey regarding access to the surgery was mostly positive and above the national average. The provider had taken action to respond to patient feedback. Staff had made the service accessible for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. Although, reception staff were able to describe how they prioritised and triaged patients when they contacted the surgery for an appointment and some staff had completed training, the provider did not have sufficient policies and procedures in place to ensure a consistent approach by staff.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

We reviewed the practice’s results in the 2022 and 2023 national GP patient survey which is taken annually between 1 January and 31 March. This showed patients responded positively when asked how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone, how satisfied they were with their GP practice appointment times, and their overall experience of making an appointment. The GP survey results for these questions were above the national average since 2022. However, the percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to how satisfied they were with the appointments they were offered had declined in 2023 was below the national average. The provider submitted the surgeries friends and family feedback from 1 April 2023 to 31 January 2024 which demonstrated that 1,216 out of 1,531 patients had stated the surgery was very good. We found the practice took account of patient feedback and made changes accordingly.

We heard how the practice provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities, including adjustments to the registration and to how patients could communicate with the practice. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care. The leaders explained they had responded to patient feedback. For example, through their primary care network (PCN), patients had access to appointments with a clinical pharmacist, a first contact physiotherapist, a paramedic, a social prescriber, and a mental health practitioner. The surgery was employing a full-time physician associate. The surgery was changing the phone system to a cloud base system, which provided better functionality and would enhance the patients’ experience when contacting the surgery. The surgery promoted the NHS and a recommended health application. Patient appointments were available online, face to face, telephone, or as a home visit. To book an appointment, patients could call in or telephone the surgery or book online. The leaders explained patients could choose either a face to face or telephone appointment. The staff provided unverified data of the number of GP appointments each week, which demonstrated approximately 75% were telephone appointments. The leaders said patients with urgent needs would be seen on the day. The surgery offered appointments with the GPs, practice nurse, health care assistant and other allied staff. When patients contacted the practice, the reception team would triage the call and prioritise and allocate appointments to the appropriate clinician at first point of contact. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers. Patients had access to an interpretation services.

The practice was open from 8am to 6:30pm from Monday to Friday. GP appointments were available from 7am to 5.30pm on a Monday, Wednesday and Thursday and from 7.30am to 5.30pm on a Tuesday and Friday. Appointments undertaken before 8am were by telephone. Patients had access to an extended GP hours service operated by the GP Federation from Monday to Friday 5pm to 8pm, Saturday and Sunday 8am to 8pm. The GP Federation also provided enhanced access appointments every weekday evening and on Saturdays for long-term health condition reviews, immunisations, social prescribing, spirometry, severe mental health checks and phlebotomy. The leaders had not undertaken regular audits to determine demand and capacity regarding their appointment system, but the leaders explained they monitored the availability of appointments and staff weekly. Although reception staff were able to clearly describe the prioritisation and triage of patients and some staff had completed training, the provider did not have the policies and procedures in place to ensure a consistent approach by staff.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.