Abington Park 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 service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The service had a system which alerted staff to any specific safety or clinical needs of a person using the service. There was a process to clinically review and triage patients and refer them to the appropriate service to meet their clinical needs. The service took complaints and other patient feedback seriously and learnt from them to improve the quality of care. 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.

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. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 71.6% exceeding the expected 69.6%.In addition, 82% of patients described their overall experience of this GP practice as good, compared with an ICS result of 71% and a national result of 75%.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Feedback from patients showed that patients felt listened to and were included in decision making. Where individuals lacked capacity, relatives and advocates were included in decision-making discussions.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. During staff meetings, the whole team discussed and learnt from clinical issues that were raised. Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority. The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. Key learning was often shared across the wider Primary Care Network (PCN) or Integrated Care Board (ICB) to support continuous improvement within the local health system. Members of the PPG felt the provider was responsive to feedback and took concerns seriously, this was evidenced in meeting minutes which highlighted how feedback led to meaningful service improvements. A culture of openness was fostered by managers, where staff felt empowered to speak up when issues occurred. Complaints and incidents were thoroughly reviewed, and learning was used to implement changes that enhanced the quality of care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available in a range of accessible formats, including large print, easy read, translated materials, and digital resources. Interpreter services, including British Sign Language (BSL), were available for those who did not speak English as a first language, and hearing loops were in place for people with hearing impairments. Patients were given clear explanations about their diagnosis, treatment options, and the likely outcomes of different choices.Group consultations were offered for carers and patients with chronic pain, providing peer support and reducing isolation. Clinicians also used creative methods such as personalised diagrams to aid patient understanding. Staff also provided advice and signposting to relevant support organisations, helping people to take an active role in managing their health. Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages.

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.

Feedback mechanisms included surveys, comment cards, and the PPG, with clear evidence of changes made in response to what people said. We reviewed a sample of complaints received by the service and evidenced they had been responded to and acted upon in a timely way in line with the providers complaint’s procedure. Complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared amongst staff to drive continuous improvement. Information about how to complain was readily available via the service website. Complaints were listened to and responded to appropriately and acted upon to improve the quality of care. Results from the GP Patient Survey showed the practice performed above the ICB average, achieving 89% for involving patients in decision-making.

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

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that the practice had improved its performance by at least 8% compared to the previous year. Feedback from the local community also highlighted positive changes made to improve access to the service. For example, the introduction of a new triage system significantly reduced telephone waiting times, which staff reported had been beneficial for both patients and the workforce. We checked the telephone waiting times and identified that no patients waited more than ten minutes in a telephone queue. Staff confirmed the average waiting time had reduced significantly. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on both ground floor and first floor with a lift, a ramp and automatic doors fitted 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 service worked with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to help address health inequalities in the community. Staff recognised the importance of providing inclusive care and adjusted to promote equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Processes were in place to ensure that everyone could register with the practice, including people in vulnerable circumstances such as those experiencing homelessness. Systems were also in place to gather and review feedback from all groups, including those who did not speak English or had limited access to digital services. Feedback from people using the service, shared both with the provider and with Care Quality Commission (CQC), was positive with the national GP Patient Survey showing that 91% of patients reported a positive experience when contacting the practice, compared with the national average of 67%. Friends and Family Test results show that 90% of patients said they would recommend the practice. In addition, 82% rated their overall experience as good, which is above the national result of 75%. Staff treated people fairly without discrimination, and leaders took proactive steps to identify and remove barriers that could impact people’s experiences of care.

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.

The provider demonstrated a proactive approach to planning for the future of the service. Leaders used patient feedback, population health data, and learning from audits to identify emerging needs and shape priorities. They worked with local partners and commissioners to anticipate changes in demand, including the impact of an ageing population and rising long-term conditions. Staff were engaged in discussions about service development and encouraged to contribute ideas for improvement. Plans included exploring new ways to improve access, strengthen digital services, and expand collaborative working within the Primary Care Network (PCN). This approach ensured the service was able to adapt to changing community needs while maintaining safe, effective, and person-centred care.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.