Lapal Medical Practice

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 involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 practice told us they regularly involved patients in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment in ways that met their individual needs. A representative of the patient participation group (PPG) told us they felt listened to and that GP partners attended meetings, demonstrating a commitment to patient engagement.

Clear information was provided to patients on how to raise concerns or make a complaint. The provider demonstrated a strong understanding of its population and took proactive steps to identify and implement service improvements.

The service ensured that people were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions and worked in partnership with them to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. The practice was aware of the demographics of its patient population, including a higher proportion of older people, and had taken steps to support those who may face digital barriers. For example, reception staff had been trained to assist patients in navigating the new triage system, ensuring equitable access to care.

People’s overall experience of the GP service was generally positive as demonstrated in the National GP Patient survey, where the practice had achieved 83%, which was above the local ICS average of 71% and the national average of 75%. Patient satisfaction scores in areas relating to patient-centred care was above average. For example, 91% of respondents found the reception and administrative team helpful, in comparison to the local average of 79% and the national average of 83%.

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.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and were taking action to develop services in response to those needs. Through the PCN, the practice staff were able to offer patients access to other services such as social prescribing, physiotherapy and mental health nurse to support their overall health and wellbeing. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

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

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services

Leaders had a good understanding of the local population and complied with the accessible information standards within the practice. We saw the provider worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services. Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

Feedback from people who used the service in the National GP Patient survey showed that 90% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This was above the local ICB average of 82% and the national average of 86%. We spoke with a PPG representative who was positive about the care they received. As part of this assessment, we invited feedback from patients. We received 3 patients feedback which was positive.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People were involved in decisions about their care and were informed about changes made because of their feedback. For example, following a suggestion from the patient participation group (PPG), a drop box was introduced to reduce the time patients spent at reception. Friends and Family Test (FFT) data from the previous 6 months indicated that more than 90% of patients rated their overall experience of the service as ‘good or very good’. The National GP Survey results found 83% of the survey respondents described their overall experience of this GP practice as good, when compared with the ICS result of, 71% and National result of, 75%.

We spoke with a representative of the PPG who told us they felt listened to and involved in reviewing complaints to help improve processes. They reported that the GP partners were genuinely interested in responding to feedback and engaging with the group to improve the service. The practice used the NHS friends and family test to invite feedback and make improvements.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person or via the practice website.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 90% of patients say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was above the local ICB average of 84% and the national average of 87%.

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

The site was accessible to people with additional needs including disabled and pram access. The practice was open for patients Monday to Friday, from 8am to 6:30pm and evening and weekend appointmentswere available as part of the local enhanced access service. Extended appointments were available for people with a learning disability. People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and patients had access to extended hours.

The National GP Patient Survey data showed that 42% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by phone. This slightly below the local average of 48% and national average of 53%. However, 56% of patients found it easy to contact the GP practice using their website which was slightly above the local ICS average of 46% and national average of 51%. The practice was trialling a triage system over the past six months and was aware of the challenges posed to a higher-than-average elderly patient population. Therefore, staff had been trained to support individuals without access to digital technology, helping to ensure equitable access. Reception staff had been able to assist patients in navigating the triage process and signposted them to appropriate clinicians or services. The national GP patient survey showed that 91% of patients found the reception and administration team at the practice helpful. This was above the local ICS average of 79% and the national average of 83%.

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.

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.

The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with protected characteristics, and making reasonable adjustments to support equitable access.

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.