Norfolk Street 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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

This service scored 79 (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 service had an exceptional understanding of 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 practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. Care Coordinators and the practice pharmacy team attended learning disability care homes and nursing home to provide continuity of care. The service provided a GP service for patients no longer in secure facilities, housed locally and supported by probation services and community teams. Staff ensured they had awareness of the range of services available to them via the social prescriber.

The practice and social prescriber supported patients who were asylum seekers to a local charity funded service entitled ASHA in North Staffordshire. The social prescriber worked with patients and ASHA to ensure their needs could be met. (ASHA provides support and promotes social inclusion for asylum seekers and refugees. Asha is a place where men, women and families seeking asylum were welcomed and supported to find the help they need. People who used the service were encouraged to become volunteers and co-workers in a collaborative enterprise which promoted social integration).

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 was 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 (AIS). Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Several GP staff members spoke multiple languages. The practice took account of their patient demographic in respect of booking of appointments as many preferred uses of the phone and face to face. Patients potentially digitally excluded were offered information in other formats such as letters. Autistic people and people with a learning disability were provided with information in appropriate formats, including pictorial easy read formats.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Until recently not all complainants had been in receipt of a written response to the complaint raised, or information on what next steps complainants could take. In response to this feedback the practice had made appropriate changes. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

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

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were accessible, and a ramp and automatic doors fitted to the entrance. The practice ensured patients were kept informed of any changes at the practice using their Facebook page, reception literature and website.

Patients had appointment choice for example, online, face to face, telephone, self-book and home visits. When triaged as appropriate, patients may be signposted to the pharmacy scheme. All on line forms were sent to the duty GP. The duty GP managed their own appointments and booked patients directly into their clinics. These could be face to face, telephone, or on medicines concerns, the patient was contacted initially and also recalled if no response. Extended access appointments were offered of an evening several days a week and on Saturdays.

The service reviewed findings from the latest National GP Survey 2025 and strategies employed to improve the service for their patients. The service identified they had high did not attend for appointment rates which they regularly reviewed to identify trends and make improvements. This impacted on appointment availability which the service regularly audited. GP appointments started at 8.30am with a set number of GP appointment offered each day. Clinics were reviewed in the clinical meetings.

A large whiteboard displayed in the back reception area provided staff with guidance on which clinical team member was best suited to handle appointments based on the patient's potential health condition. This however was not documented in any other format and if it were subject to change/tweaks based on staff or patient feedback it would not be possible to audit when the change was made. The practice agreed to consider documenting the white board information in order to be able to track any changes made.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about 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.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. 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.