Dr Christopher Bark Also known as The Soho Square 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 that the practice 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 has remained the same.We found the practice was providing a responsive service overall, however we identified an area for improvement as there was no active patient participation group.

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 practice 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. Alerts were added to patient records so staff could identify additional needs or preferences.Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. The staff demonstrated patient involvement in their care and treatment, for example, in DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decisions.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers, some of which were located in the same building such as district nurses. The practice was actively involved in their local primary care network (PCN), where they worked with other service to improve the local health inequalities.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw health awareness posters available in the waiting area that included sepsis. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. The leaders informed us they were working on updating the practice’s website so that it contained further health information and included resources for patients. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard.

They practice 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. Complaints were acknowledged, and investigated, people were given an apology, actions were taken and learning was shared with the team in meetings.The patient participation group was no longer active, and the practice used Friends and Family Tests (FFT) to obtain regular feedback. Management informed us that they are actively looking for PPG members.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The practice had appointments from 8.30amto 5pm Monday to Friday, and patients had extended hours access (6:30pm to 8pm Monday to Friday) and 8am to 8pm on weekends. The website also provided information on accessibility. There was a ramp and automatic doors to the entrance.

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. The national GP patient survey found 78% of patients had a good experience of contacting the practice (67% nationally and 71% locally), 88% found the reception staff very helpful (67% nationally, and 82% locally). In addition to this 71% of patients found it easy to contact the practice by phone (national 67%, local 60%).

Feedback provided by people using the practice was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The practice 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 practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances.

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. The practice also offered home visits where appropriate.