Hurley Clinic

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 inspection, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this inspection, the rating has changed to good.
 

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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The National Patient Survey indicated that 79% of patients felt involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment compared with the English average of 91%.

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. Patients had a choice of face to face or telephone appointments with a GP, Nurse or Healthcare Assistant. Where appropriate patients could also be referred to a local Pharmacy First provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. 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 via the NHS App.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We found the service monitored and responded to the results of the National GP Patient Survey and Friends and Family Test, with a particular focus on access and customer service. The service developed an action plan to improve patient experience and shared this with the PPG for comments. The impact of the action plan was measured through the collection of further patient feedback. In-house feedback forms were also amended to make giving feedback easier for patients and patients were routinely invited to share their experience following each appointment. The service routinely analysed complaints information and used this to improve patient experience.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The result of the National GP patient survey showed the service was performing below national averages in this area. For example, 37% of patients felt it was easy to contact the service by telephone (National Average 50%), and 52% were satisfied with their overall experience of contacting the practice (National Average 67%). However, during the assessment we saw evidence the service had proactively identified areas for improvement and responded with an action plan to improve patient experience. This included the recruitment of more GPs and the delivery of customer service training to reception staff. A rota was also introduced so more staff were available to answer calls during busy periods. Data provided by a new telephone system showed this change led to a reduction in call wait times. We reviewed the information available on NHS.uk website, which suggested patient experience was improving. Since April 2024, 20 comments had been posted on the website. Most comments were positive about the service, and the 3 patients who had concerns were contacted directly so the issues raised could be resolved.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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. This information was shared with other services when necessary.