Church Lane 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 patient’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Patients were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information in a manner people could easily understand. Patients were able to access suitable appointments, based on clinical need, and vulnerable people or those with protected characteristics were able to access care and treatment in ways that met their personal circumstances. The National GP Patient Survey outcomes were broadly in line with national averages in relation to access. The practice took complaints and other patient feedback seriously and learnt from them to improve the quality of care.

At our previous inspection, 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 patients 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.

Discussion with leaders showed that they understood the needs of their local population and demonstrated a good understanding of the practice’s demographics, challenges they faced and systems in place which placed patients at the centre of care. The recent National GP Patient Survey showed that 85.5% of patients responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice (national average 75.4%).

Referral systems ensured patients received consistent, coordinated care when they moved between services. Staff told us that they involved patients in their care and treatment. They told us they did this by having discussions, offering choice, and by providing patients with the support they needed to understand, for example by offering support with any communication needs. Where individuals lacked capacity, relatives and advocates were included in decision-making discussions.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure patient’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The practice held registers of different patient groups, including those with a learning disability and carers. The practice registered patients with no fixed abode by using the practice as their address.

The practice provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual patient needs. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Patients could request information in more accessible ways, such as in large print and individual communication needs were noted on a patient’s clinical record. The practice website had the functionality to translate to other languages, it included up-to-date information about opening times, out of hours information, patient registration, clinics and services, health information and support. Reasonable adjustments were made at the practice to support communication and interpreter services, including British Sign Language (BSL), were available for those who did not speak English as a first language.

Staff told us the different ways that patients could share feedback and ideas and raise complaints. This included the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), the complaints process and through compliments. Staff we spoke with understood the complaints process and how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they may have. There was an effective complaints process in place which included a lead and policy. We reviewed complaint records and saw complaints were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and learning shared. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

Patient feedback from the recent National GP Patient Survey in relation to access was broadly in line with national averages. We found 70.6% responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice (national average 69.9%), 51.8% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice by phone (national average 52.9%), 59% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using their website (national average 51%) and 45% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using the NHS App (national average 49%).

The practice made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Appointment types included telephone and face-to-face. Appointments could be booked on the day or in advance, by telephone, online, or at the practice The practice offered home visits and urgent appointments for patients where appropriate. Staff were trained in care navigation which enabled them to signpost to other services. The practice operated a daily duty doctor system.

The practice worked with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to help address health inequalities in the community. Staff recognised the importance of providing inclusive care and made adjustments to promote equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Patients were offered longer appointments if they required them, for example, those with complex health needs. People with learning disabilities experienced additional care through annual reviews. Processes were in place to ensure that everyone could register with the practice, including people in vulnerable circumstances such as those experiencing homelessness.

Staff had completed equality and diversity, learning disability and autism awareness training.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. Decisions and choices made by people were documented and reviewed as required. Patients at end of life were reviewed in multi-disciplinary team meetings. Patient’s decisions and what mattered to them were delivered through personalised care plans that were shared with others who may need to be informed. Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were completed in line with guidance.