Somerford Grove Practice

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 practice 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 practice 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 reported positive experiences of care and treatment. Ninety-five percent of respondents to the GP Patient Survey felt their needs were met during their last appointment, compared with 87% locally and 90% nationally. Although only 68% felt they waited the right amount of time for their appointment, this remained above the local average of 62% and was comparable with the national average of 69%.

All staff had completed the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism.

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 saw that the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The latest GP Patient Survey found that 84% of respondents knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice, which was in line with the national average (84%) and above the local average (80%). In addition, 89% knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting the practice, which was in line with the local average (89%) but below the national average (93%). Overall, this indicated that most patients had been provided with clear information about what to expect following contact with the practice.

The practice made it easy for people to raise concerns and complaints. Complaints were analysed by the practice manager, and themes were reviewed to identify opportunities for improvement. Leaders demonstrated learning from patient feedback. For example, previous concerns regarding telephone access contributed to the introduction of the current triage model, and feedback about locum clinicians was reviewed and addressed. Patient feedback was also sought through the patient participation group, including discussions relating to the triage service.

They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

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, including complaints.

GP Patient Survey results demonstrated patients were positive about their interactions with the practice. The reception and administrative team were viewed particularly positively, with 92% of respondents finding them helpful compared with 79% locally and 85% nationally.

The practice made sure people could access care and treatment when they needed it. The practice had implemented a range of access routes, including telephone, online and the NHS App. GP Patient Survey results showed that 68% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by telephone, compared to 55% locally and 57% nationally. Additionally, 58% found it easy to contact the practice through its website compared to 53% locally and 58% nationally. Survey results showed 50% found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, in line with the local average of 50% and compared with 54% nationally.

Patients were generally positive regarding access arrangements. Of respondents, 72% said they were offered a choice of time or day when making their last appointment, compared with 57% locally and nationally. Furthermore, 82% described their experience of contacting the practice as good, compared with 67% locally and 73% nationally.

Staff could record specific concerns within the triage process and make reasonable adjustments to support access. Home visits were delivered by a paramedic, advanced nurse practitioner and other clinicians as appropriate. Proactive visits were arranged for patients requiring ongoing support.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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 practice, 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. The practice was accredited as a Veteran Friendly Practice and had signed up to the Safe Surgeries initiative. These programmes helped ensure potentially vulnerable groups, including military veterans, refugees, asylum seekers and people experiencing barriers to registration, could access appropriate support and healthcare services when needed.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the practice, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

The practice supported people to plan for important life changes, including end-of-life care. Patients approaching the end of life were identified through clinical review and multidisciplinary working. Some patients received opportunistic contact and proactive support, while others were already linked to palliative care services. Regular visits were provided for patients nearing the end of life, and care planning discussions, including resuscitation decisions, were documented and shared appropriately where required.