St John's 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 has remained the same.
 

This service scored 62 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. We saw from the results of the National GP Patient Survey (2024) that 85% of patients said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was below the national average (91%). The service has not provided evidence to demonstrate what action was taken to address these results. The staff we spoke to demonstrated a good understanding of their patients and the practice had developed the service in response to those needs. Alerts were added to patient records so staff could identify additional needs or preferences. Patients with learning disabilities were offered longer appointments with a nurse. Home visits were available for house bound patients and through the triage system if needed for all other patients.

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. Clinical staff held multidisciplinary meetings to ensure joined-up care. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. This included an initiative to offer health checks to people attending a local food bank. The service also operated a digital and inclusion hub for patients who needed help to access services online.

The service supplied 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. Translation services and a hearing loop were available to patients at all sites. Written information to promote screening and immunisation programmes was available in braille and a range of languages. The practice website also contained full details on how to make an appointment, the services available and how to give feedback or make a complaint.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff we spoke to knew how patients could make a complaint or provide feedback. This included from the practice website and by speaking to a member of the reception team who could provide a copy of the complaints leaflet. We saw evidence that the service obtained and monitored patient feedback and had prepared an action plan to address areas for improvement.
We saw that complaints were managed in line with the practice policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback and also from lessons learned from complaints.
 

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey (2024) indicated that the practice was performing below national averages regarding equity in access. We saw that from 201 responses out of 829 surveys, 16% of patients found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone (National Average 50%), 10% find it easy to contact this GP practice using their website (National Average 48%) and 38% of patients were satisfied with their experience of contacting the practice (National Average 67%). However, people did have a choice in how they contacted the service, for example they could do so online, in person and by telephone. The premises was accessible, and treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.
We reviewed the information available on NHS.uk website. Since 2022, 22 comments had been posted with 7 positive comments about the service provided by clinical and non-clinical staff. The remaining 15 comments described negative experiences relating to customer service, difficulty accessing appointments and a poor standard of care. The provider responded to all feedback where action was required.
In response to patient feedback the service had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they introduced a new telephone and triage system, improved digital inclusion by supporting patients to use their online booking system, and recruited more GPs. However, the full effect of these actions was not yet reflected in more recent patient feedback.
 

Staff and leaders had identified 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, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, the service helped form a group consultation programme designed to address health inequity and an initiative to offer health checks to patients attending a local food bank. A digital inclusion hub was also introduced to support patients to use online services.

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. This information was shared with other services when necessary.