Colliers Wood 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. We reviewed five clinical records and saw that staff documented decisions and confirmed consent was given where relevant.

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 the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. This included local religious organisations and community centre by using their building to run flu clinics. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service 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 to patients in a range of languages. This included written materials, such as cervical screening invitations, were provided in languages commonly spoken by the patient population. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. For example, a patient shared that they felt fully informed and confident following detailed discussions about their treatment and prescribed medication.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. The practice manager was responsible for monitoring complaints. Details of how to make a complaint were displayed at the reception desk and on the practice website. We reviewed the current complaints log and saw that complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy.

We reviewed team and clinical staff meeting minutes and saw that complaints were discussed and learning was shared for staff to identify changes and improve the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. This included a hearing loop and interpreting services to support communication needs. The provider also ensured physical accessibility to the premises. There is step-free access to the building and a lift to reach other floors. Although the lift was temporarily out of use, appropriate arrangements were made, and staff ensured that patients with mobility issues were seen on the ground floor.

The National GP Patient Survey reported that 30% of patients said they could get through to the practice by phone. This was lower than the local and national averages of 61% and 53% respectively.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from patients the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. In response to this they carried out work to identify how they could improve patients experience of calling the practice and waiting long to get through. They told us that to combat this they referred patients to 111 and the walk-in centre if they could not get an appointment at the practice.

For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. 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.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. They implemented additional support by allotting extra time / double appointment slots with the health care assistant if required.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. For example, we reviewed patient comment collected by the service. patient with reduced mobility described staff “being helpful” in assisting when they enter the building.

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. This includes a local church, which provided its premises as the venue for the community flu vaccination clinic. 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. They also allowed them to use their address to access other services.

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.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We reviewed the “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) plans that the practice had in place. They were completed in line with expectations. This included documenting the patients and family involvement where appropriate, consideration of mental capacity and liaison with other services. This information was regularly discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings, involving the care nurse and other relevant professionals. These discussions were guided by the palliative care register.