Church View 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.

The service offered on-the-day appointments with GPs, nurses and GP registrars. People could choose whether they had a face-to-face consultation or a telephone consultation. Reception staff were trained in care navigation and guided people on whether a telephone consultation was likely to be clinically appropriate. For example, clinical staff identified when a face-to-face appointment was needed when a physical examination may be required.

The appointment system ensured both urgent and routine care was well managed and people, including those with barriers, could access the service. However, some feedback received by CQC, was mixed. For example, people using the service described the system for appointments and online services as quick and efficient to use, whilst others found it difficult. The service was aware of the difficulties some people were experiencing and were in the process of changing their online access system in response to feedback.

The service has a system and process for workforce forecast planning a month ahead. The system considered staffing levels and number of calls received the previous month. The system had capacity to identify gaps, build in resilience and redirect staff to other duties or increase staff numbers during peak times. For example, if it has been identified that approx. 100-180 online requests had been completed and actioned on a Monday (peak time) and between 75-100 on a Wednesday; staffing levels would be adapted to meet demand at peak times. The service also used data from call screening to inform forecast planning. For example, number of incoming calls received, queue waiting numbers / time waiting, length of calls during peak times. This would then inform the number of staff required during peak times and if adjustments needed to be made.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, a ramp and an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service.

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.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders and staff proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations 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 service considered and always tried to accommodate requests for preferred times of the day to assist those who preferred the quieter times. Staff added digital flags to people’s records to ensure consistent and respectful care for people with specific needs, and who may need reasonable adjustments. For example, learning disabilities, autism, mental health conditions, deafness, and visual impairment.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. People who wished to register with the service who did not have online access, could contact the service to complete a paper registration form, which was the same as the information submitted via the online portal. Staff assisted people in registering for digital access.

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.

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.