Shoreditch Park 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 the service met people’s needs, and 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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

People could access appointments in person, by telephone and online, with extended access available during early mornings, evenings and weekends.

GP Patient Survey results were positive: 96% of patients found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, 97% described their overall contact experience as good, and 75% found the website easy to use.

The premises had step-free access, an accessible reception area, a hearing loop and facilities for wheelchair users.

Interpreter services, multilingual staff and community advocates supported people with communication needs.

Staff helped people use digital services, and patients could attend the practice in person where digital access was a barrier. Vulnerable patients and reasonable adjustments were flagged on the clinical system, enabling staff to provide timely access, longer appointments and other individual support.

Leaders reviewed appointment use and patient feedback and had introduced doctor-specific semi-urgent appointments to improve continuity and access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The practice promoted equality and tailored care to people at greater risk of poorer experiences or outcomes. Clinical searches and alerts identified people with learning disabilities, severe mental illness, frailty, dementia, safeguarding concerns, multiple long-term conditions and those approaching the end of life.

Staff considered cultural, religious, communication and accessibility needs when planning care. This included culturally adjusted body mass index thresholds, personalised long-term condition reviews, interpreter and advocacy support, reasonable adjustments and recording cultural and religious wishes in end-of-life care plans.

The practice worked with mental health, social prescribing, community navigation and local support services to reduce social and practical barriers to patients’ equitable experiences and outcomes in their care.

Learning disability health check and health action plan completion was 81%, which was above the Investment and Impact Fund upper threshold. GP Patient Survey results showed 79% of patients felt their mental wellbeing was considered, and 74% felt sufficiently supported to manage a long-term condition.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.