Front Street Surgery Also known as Drs Orr, Green, Pal & Nellist

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 86 (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 was exceptional at making 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.

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. They were also involved in decisions about their care. The service knew its patients extremely well and could quickly identify and describe their needs without relying solely on clinical records. Friends and Family data from the previous 3 months supported this, with extremely positive comments from patients about person-centred 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 had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The practice had begun undertaking work to use the NHS England reasonable adjustments flag. This allowed a digital marker to be applied after sending a questionnaire to patients who responded positively to needing adjustments to their access to care. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. There were effective arrangements for interpretation and translation services including British Sign Language through a digital application that the provider had subscribed to. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

National GP Patient Survey data was extremely positive, and above national averages, about ease of access and overall experience of the practice. In response to feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with complex conditions. The arrangements for cervical screening clinics had been made more flexible. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and we observed clinical staff helping patients into the waiting room from the car park, where needed.

The practice had plans to imminently switch to a total triage model and had really thought about the impacts of this upon patients, before making any decisions.

The practice had surveyed its own patients to establish areas for improvement. Practice derived data showed that 75% found it easy to contact the GP Practice using the NHS App (ICS result 54% National result 49%). 81% were offered the choice around time and/or day within the GP appointment (ICS result 55%, National result 54%). 99%, felt their needs were met during their last appointment. (ICS result 90%, National result 90%).

Data provided by the practice also showed that patients joining Front Street Surgery from other practices had increased every month in the last two years, (total increase in two years of almost 7%). Anecdotally, patients told clinicians that the practice was regarded by the local community as being more accessible and more caring.

Friends and Family data we looked at supported this evidence, with patients commenting that they could easily access an appointment or a contact when they needed to.

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. Leaders 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 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.

National data showed that 99% of respondents to the GP patient survey stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. This was above the national average of 92%.

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.