Westbury 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 68 (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.

The provider told us they were proud to provide good holistic and flexible care for their patients. They were also involved in decisions about their care as reflected in the National GP Patient Survey.

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 practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. There were mechanisms in place for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages which met the population of the practice. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Central incident and complaint logs were not maintained to ensure outcomes were tracked, and improvements embedded.

Informal complaints had not been recorded to identify key themes and trends. The complaints procedure still referred to the now defunct Clinical Commissioning Group and did not include detailed timescales, or the escalation route should a person not be happy with how their complaint had been managed.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Leaders told us they had been offering a total triage service since 2012 by phoning and accessing patient clinical need prior to booking an appointment. People could access the service to suit their needs for example in person and by telephone. The practice telephone system offered a call back feature allowing patients to hang up and receive a call back when they were next in line. Clinicians arranged follow up appointments if a patient needed to be reviewed. The practice told us if patients phoned the practice with an emergency, they would get a call back the same day and reception staff were trained on conditions which required an urgent appointment.

The National GP Patient Survey results was positive about their experience of contacting the service and accessing appointments. The National GP Patient Survey results found 79% of people who responded to the survey were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, above the national average of 70%. In addition, 59% were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, above the national average of 53%. Feedback we received from the local Healthwatch in Shropshire showed both positive and negative patient care experiences. Positive experiences included being able to remain with the practice since moving over the border into Wales. Negative experiences included the lack of appointment availability and the time taken for the practice to answer the phone.

Services were provided from a single-story building. The practice did not provide automatic doors to the entrance; however, a bell was fitted at the front door to alert staff if they required assistance to access the building.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were 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 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. They shared an example of how they had supported a particular patient with complex health and social needs to ensure their equity in outcomes.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice. 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.

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.