Daybrook 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 met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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 service recognised the diverse population needs and fully understood their service’s demographic and language barriers. For example, translators were utilised to assist with telephone consultations where required.

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 nurse also told us that would always provide advice to people to come back if their condition worsens.

Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered for people, with alerts added to medical records so that reception were aware upon contact that the person had additional needs. For example, people who were blind or hard of hearing were collected from the waiting room by the clinicians, a hearing loop was installed at reception. People with autism or a learning disability were offered a quiet place to wait for appointments.

The service reached out to people with learning disabilities and their carers and encouraged them to accept an invite for a learning disability health check.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

The service had access to interpreter and translation services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Staff told us they had access to services for translating documents into appropriate languages, including into English. A hearing loop was also available. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

A range of information on aspect of health for all ages and local support groups were available in the practice and via the practice website.

We saw notice boards within the waiting room which communicated information for people. For example, carers and young carers, anxiety support group, talking therapies services, NHS App, research board and a board promoting general health and wellbeing.

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.

We spoke with a member of the Patient Participation Group (PPG) who told us that the PPG membership had very few members since the covid pandemic. The member told us the PPG relationship with the service “was a positive relationship”. The PPG member also told us that the group had helped to conduct patient surveys; hosted a coffee morning to recruit new members and had cake stalls in the waiting room to raise funds. In addition, we were informed that the service listened to suggestions made by the PPG. For example, members found signage for consulting room confusing. As a result, the service changed the signage which resulted in easier and clearer directions to relevant consulting rooms.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff treated people with compassion and understanding. 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 service’s policy. Complaints reviewed during this assessment showed the practice responded to feedback appropriately, openly and in a non-defensive manner. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback and complaints. For example, a neighbouring practice contacted the service as a patient had recently moved to them from Daybrook Medical Practice. The person’s new practice identified that the hospital had requested Daybrook to arrange a follow up scan for the person within a prescribed time frame, however, this request had not been carried out by the service. To ensure that similar errors were not repeated, the practice changed the way instructions from hospitals were entered into the medical record so that an automatic recall reminder were generated within the appropriate timeframe.

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

People were offered an appointment appropriate for their assessed need or directed to an alternative service. Staff were able to signpost people to the most appropriate pathways when required. For example, the pharmacy first scheme, social prescribers and health and wellbeing coaches. People were also signposted to the local urgent care centre when appropriate.

People who required routine appointments outside of the usual working hours had access to evening and weekend appointments. These appointments were booked on behalf of people by the service. Housebound people were offered home visits.

The service was able to offer extended appointment durations for people with a learning disability.

The service offered appointments for cervical cytology and childhood immunisations at various times during the week including Saturday and evening clinics.

The service provided direct booking links to people who used services. For example, electronic booking links were sent to people who had been asked to book appointments with the pharmacist for medication review, vaccine clinics, smear tests, and for blood tests. By using the booking link, people were able to make an appointment for the required slot directly and without contacting the service via the telephone.

National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people were positive about the overall experience of contacting the practice. Indicators showed 50.2% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice which was below the national average of 69.6%. In addition, 17.6% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, this was below the national average of 52.9%. In response to the Patient Survey data, the service is implementing triage of routine appointments in October 2025 where people with mainly contact the service over the internet to request an appointment.

Feedback from people using the service was varied. People felt involved in assessments of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual needs. People we spoke to in the waiting room, told us, “I had to wait for an hour in the waiting room.” “Feel confident” in the service “now that I have an appointment.” “There were delays in the telephone being answered.”

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 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. For example, extended hours appointments for workers, appointments at quiet times for vulnerable people and extended appointment times for complex cases.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and people from travelling communities.

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 service were proactive in identifying people approaching end of life and sensitive to their needs for advanced care planning.

Records we reviewed 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. For example, the out of hours services and other health care professionals involved in the care of this group of people.

We were assured that safeguards were in place to ensure that decisions were made which were in the persons’ best interest. When people did not have mental capacity to make their own decisions regarding end-of-life care and priorities for care and treatment. family members and carers were involved in decision making.