Park Green 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. Complaint responses did not contain details of what can happen next including the offer of further consideration where appropriate.

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 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.

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 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. The practice was involved in their primary care network, who were based in the same building, to provide services relevant to patients in their practice.

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. The practice was registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

We saw complaints were not managed in line with the practice’s policy. Complaint responses did not contain details of what can happen next including the offer of further consideration where appropriate.

However, 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. 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.

The practice used a full triage system. All requests were reviewed by a GP and daily urgent appointments were protected for urgent cases. Patient feedback about their experience of accessing the practice was mostly positive.

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 provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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.

Thank you for your factual accuracy comments, we have reviewed the evidence we obtained onsite. You did not hold the DNACPR form in the patient record so we were unable to review it. For this reason we will remove reference to the DNACPR forms.

We have changed the commentary to read as follows: We reviewed one patient who had a Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) in place, however the form was not saved in their records. For this reason there was no evidence that the practice did or did not support patients to make decisions at the end of their life.

Please review our mythbuster for future decision documentation.

The score will change to a 3.