Gladstone House 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.

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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people 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 practice was an accredited veteran friendly GP practice which meant that veterans were entitled to priority access to NHS hospital care for any condition as long as it was related to their service. The service had undertaken an audit to improve the identification and coding of military veterans, to ensure they received appropriate recognition and access to tailored healthcare services. This work was currently ongoing.

Extended appointments were available for those who needed them, and the service accommodated people had specific needs around where they waited for appointments, when they were seen or if they would be benefit from being seen at home in a familiar environment.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the local Primary Care Network (PCN), who provided appointments with a range of different health care professionals, as well as the local GP federation who provided additional appointments through the ‘on day’ and ‘enhanced access’ service. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the frailty team, who supported people living in care homes or the community.

We received positive feedback from the care homes where the practice provided care and treatment. They told us continuity of care was provided through the GP partners visiting regularly and getting to know people well, which was particularly important for people with learning disability.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, easy read material and large print letters.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

Health promotion and information leaflets were available. For example, home care, safeguarding, mental health support, survivors of suicide and carer’s support.

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. Information on how to escalate concerns was shared with people in the service acknowledgement letter. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback, including complaints.

The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. The results and comments were shared with staff. The patient participation group also carried out surveys on behalf of the service. Changes made as a result of feedback included purchasing riser feet to enable people to rise for the disabled/bariatric chairs more easily, reminding reception staff to offer alternative areas when people requested to speak in private, and the proposed recruitment of a phlebotomist.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

The service offered on the day appointments and routine appointments. People could also be booked into the ‘on day’ service if an appointment was not available at the service. The ‘enhanced access’ service offered evening and weekend appointments at Ilkeston Community Hospital for those who were unable to access appointments during normal working hours.

The National GP Patient Survey results was positive about their experience of contacting the service and accessing appointments. The National GP Patient Survey results found 77% of people who responded to the survey were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, and 68% were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground and first floor and a ramp and automatic doors had been fitted to the entrance. There was a lift for people to use to the first floor.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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. For example, people who found sitting in the waiting room distressing were offered a quiet area in which to wait for their appointment. Nursing staff visited to carry out long term condition reviews for those people who were housebound or not able to visit the service. Feedback from care homes supported the service carried out annual reviews for people with a learning disability.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. They had access to translation services for people whose first language was not English and a hearing loop for people with a hearing impairment.

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. People who required additional care and support were discussed during the regular multi-disciplinary team meetings.