Ellergreen 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 71 (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.

The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. For example, the weekly baby clinic was moved to the morning following feedback that these better suited parents with older children by avoiding school run times.

Patient satisfaction scores in the National GP Patient Survey relating to patient-centred care were about the same as the local and national average. For example, 87% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was about the same as the local average of 87% and national average of 86%.

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 clinical staff team were longstanding, and this provided a high level of consistency for people who used the service. Staff told us where necessary; people benefitted from seeing the same healthcare professional.

Staff collaborated with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services were 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 uptake of screening programmes and working closely with the Primary Care Network (PCN) to plan, develop and deliver services across the locality, including extended access schemes and monthly vaccination team meetings.

The National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 77% of patients felt they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term condition or illness, which was above the local average of 72% and national average of 70%.

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 were available in a range of languages. 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.

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.

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 concerns, complaints or issues. We saw feedback from the Friends and Family Test which was mostly positive and via complaints which we reviewed. People were encouraged to give feedback to the practice if they wished to complain about their care, treatment and support, and complaints were responded to appropriately with a full response and an apology. Complaint leaflets were available in reception and on the practice website.

Reception staff told us how they dealt with people’s concerns daily and reacted to concerns before they escalated. Complaints were documented appropriately, and trends and themes were reviewed for learning and to improve services.

The National GP Patient Survey results for the practice found that 90% of patients who responded felt the healthcare professionals who saw them were good at listening to them during their last GP practice appointment. This was above the local and national average of 89% and 87%, respectively.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Appointments were available online, in person and by telephone. However, The National GP Patient Survey results for the practice found low levels of satisfaction with their experience of contacting the service and accessing appointments. For example, 31% of patients reported finding it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, which was lower than the local and national average of average of 57%. In addition, 72% of respondents found the reception and administrative team at this practice helpful, which was below the local average of 86% and national average of 85%. We discussed these findings during our assessment, and the practice were able to demonstrate the efforts they were making to improve patient satisfaction in this area. For example, the practice had recently recruited 3 new reception staff and introduced a telephone call back system.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. There was a fully accessible lift, and automatic doors had been fitted to the entrance of the building. A disabled toilet and baby changing facilities were also available.

Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other services. Requests for emergency appointments were seen the same day and requests for home visits were reviewed and carried out if deemed necessary.

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

Staff treated people fairly and without discrimination, taking proactive steps to reduce barriers and improve experiences. They worked with local services to address health inequalities, including offering longer, quieter appointments for vulnerable patients, such as those with a learning disability or dementia. Staff provided inclusive care and followed processes to support registration for people in vulnerable circumstances, including homeless people and Travellers.

The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues. Staff liaised regularly with community services to discuss and manage the needs of patients with complex medical issues. Information on booking appointments online, by phone or in person, and accessing urgent care when the practice was closed, was available on the practice website.

Feedback shared from people who used the service, was mostly positive.

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.