East Park Medical Centre - R P Pandya

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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice demonstrated a person-centred approach to care, ensuring people were actively involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked collaboratively with patients to understand and respond to changes in their needs and circumstances. Care plans reflected patients' physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those associated with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The practice reviewed patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made appropriate changes to enhance the quality of care for patients. The patient participation group (PPG) spoke positively about their involvement with the practice and told us they felt listened to and that their views and suggestions were taken seriously and used to inform service improvements and patient care. Staff adopted a flexible approach to the delivery of appointments and reviews, that enabled patients to access care in a way that reflected their individual needs and preferences.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The total triage model ensured patients received the right care with the right clinician. The practice provided care to a nearby care home. To promote continuity of care and support the development of trusting relationships, the senior partner routinely attended these visits. This enabled patients to be seen by a familiar clinician and helped create a greater understanding of their individual needs and circumstances. Information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required. 95%of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment, this was higher than the local and national average of 92%. They tailored their services to meet the diverse needs of patients and promoted health education and preventative care initiatives. National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 89% of respondents felt they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses, this was higher than the local average of 67% and national average of 70%.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care in accordance with the Accessible Information Standard supported patients to understand and engage with their care and treatment. Systems were in place to identify and meet patients' communication needs. The practice website was available in different languages and key information was clearly visible on the homepage. Information about how to make a complaint was provided in leaflet format or on their website. We reviewed a sample of complaint responses and found that they were not always managed in line with the practice's complaints policy. Complainants were not provided with information about how to escalate their concerns to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) if they remained dissatisfied with the practice's response. Leaders acknowledged this finding and assured us that complaint response templates were already in place and would be utilised consistently going forward to ensure all required information is included in future correspondence.

The practice had effective systems in place to enable people to provide feedback about their experiences of the service. Feedback could be submitted through both verbal and written channels and was routinely analysed to identify themes, trends, and opportunities for improvement. The practice demonstrated a positive approach to responding to patient feedback, using insights gathered to drive service development. For example, feedback identified that the practice website was not user-friendly. In response, the practice implemented changes to improve accessibility and usability, including making information available in a range of languages and making key information and functions more prominent through clearly visible buttons to better meet the needs of its patient population.

The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) which met quarterly to gain insight of the views of people using the service. Members of the PPG told us they had a positive relationship with the practice, felt their views were valued, and were actively involved in discussions and decision-making relating to service development. The practice used patient feedback, including complaints, as a learning opportunity, with concerns regularly reviewed and discussed to support continuous improvement and enhance the quality of care provided.

The National GP Patient Survey Data demonstrated that 84% of respondents felt the healthcare professional was good at listening to them, this was in line with the local average.

The practice did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patient feedback from the National GP Survey demonstrated this because 58% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, 51% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website and 55% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app.

The practice ensured people could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. The practice was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday, with extended access on Monday. The branch site closed at 1pm on Thursdays. Various appointment types were available such as in person, online and telephone consultations.

The practice introduced a total triage system. This online service ensured patients in need of urgent medical review were seen and assessed on the same day. This also reduced phone call waiting times. A digital health champion was based in reception to support patients who experienced difficulties using online services. They provided guidance on accessing online healthcare resources, including the NHS app, helping patients to use these services confidently and effectively.

The practice provided a range of ways for patients to access services, including both digital and non-digital options, helping to ensure equitable access for all patients. Staff considered the needs of people and enhanced accessibility where additional needs were identified. Meaningful adjustments were made, including longer appointments during quieter times in the day for people with a learning disability. Staff were also able to speak in many languages. Consultation rooms were accessible on the ground floor, and a lift was provided for consultations rooms on the first floor. There was a car park on site at the main site with a designated disabled parking space. However, there was no parking available at the branch site, so staff advised patients to allow additional time to find parking nearby.

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 understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff actively promoted equality of opportunity and strived to eliminate discrimination in all aspects of their work. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experiences. Health information was accessible in the waiting areas and available in different languages. The practice had processes in place to ensure vulnerable people such as homeless patients or Travellers could register at the practice. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not 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. Records showed people were supported to have meaningful conversations about their end of life wishes. Staff spoke with kindness and compassion about how the information for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms was gathered. The practice participated in quarterly palliative care multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to support coordinated care planning and ensured patients received the appropriate end of life care.