Dr Rozewicz & Partners Also known as Simpson House 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 in July 2016, 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.

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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people 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 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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, it had established clinics and mechanisms for engaging with community and secondary care clinicians, ensuring continuity and convenience for people who required these services. As well as clinical staff, patients had access to a range of other healthcare professionals including a mental health link worker, health and wellbeing coach and social prescribers.

The practice also provided ECG services for people registered at 2 other practices within the primary care network, supporting improved access and continuity of care across the network.

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. 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.

The service gathered patient feedback through a variety of methods, including access surveys, focus groups, Friends and Family Test responses, Patient Participation Group meetings, an anonymous suggestion box, and complaints. We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident, and staff were able to describe changes that had been made in response to feedback. For example, people had raised concerns about having to queue at reception to hand in samples. In response, the provider introduced a dedicated pathology drop-off box, enabling people to leave their samples without queueing. Reception staff were also involved in determining the most suitable location for the box to ensure it was accessible and effective.

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

All patient requests were submitted through PATCHS, an online consultation system that supported translation into multiple languages, allowing people to submit requests in their preferred language. The practice operated a total triage system and all requests were assessed by a GP before an appointment was booked. To support this model, the practice ensured that 2 duty doctors were available each day to manage the volume of total triage requests.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) had developed an online resource to support patients in using PATCHS. This resource provided clear guidance and helped ensure that all people were able to access the service equitably.

The service offered extended appointments for people with a learning disability, those with multiple conditions or for people who required an interpreter. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

Accessible treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the main entrance. We observed that a second internal door at the entrance was not power-assisted, and staff were seen assisting people who had difficulty opening it. We requested that the provider review this arrangement to ensure the premises were accessible for all people. Following the inspection, the provider informed us they had reviewed access arrangements to reduce physical barriers at the main entrance. Automated door access was risk assessed and deemed unsuitable due to safety concerns. As an alternative, a clearly labelled doorbell was installed to enable people to request assistance when entering or leaving the building, and reception staff were reminded to remain alert to people who may require support. The provider also confirmed that this change would be shared with the Patient Participation Group at their next meeting.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey results and feedback from people, the provider had identified and implemented changes to improve access to the service. For example: additional doctors were scheduled on Mondays to manage higher demand for appointments and reduce waiting times; reception staff had received training to support people with limited digital access; and the non-clinical request system was open an hour longer each day to increase flexibility.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the service as well as to CQC, was positive.

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.

Patients provided feedback on the end-of-life care their family members received, emphasising both the compassionate and caring nature of the staff and the support they received themselves afterwards.