Oak Vale Medical Centre Also known as Dr Michael Cranney & Partners

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.

We assessed all quality statement from this key question. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. The rating remains good following this assessment.

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 provided person centred care and treatment whereby people’s individual needs and wishes were respected and acted upon. 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.

Feedback from people who used the service was that they were supported to understand their condition and involved in decisions about their care and treatment and in planning for their future needs.

Staff demonstrated a person centred approach to their work. The culture and ethos of the service was to ensure a high level of patient satisfaction. We heard numerous examples of how patients were supported with their emotional and physical health needs. A designated member of staff regularly contacted people who were deemed as vulnerable to check they were receiving the care and support they needed and another was a ‘dementia buddy’ and a ‘cancer buddy’. Their role was to contact patients and their carers upon diagnosis to provide a direct contact to the practice and ensure they were aware of support services and received a level of priority for accessing the service. Further examples of staff acting in a very responsive and person centred way were shared. A representative from the patient participation group (PPG) also described the service as person centred and reported that staff were known to go ‘above and beyond’ to support patients.

Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan patient care and treatment so that people’s needs could be met holistically.

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

The clinical staff team were long-standing and this provided a level of consistency for people who used the service. Staff told us that where necessary, people benefitted from seeing the same healthcare professional. However the practice received lower than average satisfaction scores (31%) in the National GP Patient Survey when asked if they usually get to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to (national average 40%). The practice was a training practice with a regular cohort of doctors in training.

Staff worked with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example, working hard to promote the take up of screening programmes.

The provider worked closely with the Primary care network (PCN) to plan, develop and deliver services across the locality.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. People were provided with information about their health and treatment options for them to make an informed decision.

The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services.

Staff provided safety netting advice when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

Feedback from people who used the service in the National GP Patient Survey showed that 95% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment (national average 92%).

The practice had access to interpreter services to support people who did not use English as their first language. The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

The service was good at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The practice received similar to or higher than national average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions related to feeling listened to and being involved in decisions about their care and treatment. For example, 89% of respondents felt the health care professional they had seen during their last appointment was good at listening to them (national average 87%) and 95% of respondents were involved in decisions about their care and treatment (national average 91%).

The provider monitored patient views via the NHS Friends and Family Test and NHS and online feedback.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues. Feedback from people who used the service was reviewed and used to support service improvement.

We reviewed a sample of 3 complaints, these had been investigated and responded to. We noted that the final outcome letter did not provide details for the second stage of the complaints process for one of the complaints we viewed. Following our assessment the provider took action to address this.

The provider understood their patient population and they identified and made changes to improve their service where required.

The provider worked to improve people’s access to care, support and treatment. People who used the service provided mixed feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their experience of contacting the practice as good was 64% (national average 70%). The survey showed that a lower than average percentage of respondents, 33%, found it easy to get through to the practice by phone (national average of 53%). Lower than national average scores were received for patients finding it easy to contact the practice using the website or NHS App. The provider had been working to improve patient experience of access to the service and had completed the General Practice Improvement Programme (a national program aimed at supporting general practices to make improvements in access to primary care) in line with the model of the modern general practice. The provider was aware that continued work was required to improve patient experience in this area and with particular regard to telephone access. They told us they had experienced a long period of technical difficulties with the phone system that had recently been resolved.

There was information available to support people to understand how to access the service. Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours. People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. There were systems and processes in place to prioritise people presenting with the highest need. Staff were trained to direct people to the most appropriate clinician or service to meet their needs. Clinicians were available to see people on-the-day for urgent appointment requests.

Staff told us they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities and that they treated people equally and without discrimination.

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the accessible information standards and the patient record system was used to alert staff to any particular communication needs of the patient so that they could then communicate effectively with the patient. For example, people with hearing loss or with a learning disability.

The premises were purpose built and fully accessible for people who were physically disabled. Treatment rooms were all provided on the ground floor and an automatic door was provided to the entrance.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff and leaders ensured they were able to recognise patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they tailored the service to meet their care, support and treatment needs in response to this.For example, by supporting people who have a learning disability to undergo regular health checks.

People who used the service had equal opportunities to access reviews of their care, treatment and medicines. People were invited for health screening and immunisation uptake and the provider worked to encourage uptake in these areas as they were lower than national targets.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

The provider monitored data about the care and treatment provided to patients and was working to ensure people experienced similar outcomes for care and treatment when compared to services locally and nationally.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 92% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment (national average 90%) and 78% described their overall experience of the practice as good (national average 75%).

People who used the service were supported to live healthier lives and to make decisions about their future care. People were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and supported to plan for these.

Multi-disciplinary meetings were held on a regular basis to discuss the needs of people receiving end of life care.Our records review showed 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.