Dearne Valley Group 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

At our previous assessment in March 2016, we rated the practice Good for providing a responsive service. At this assessment we have rated the practice as Good. People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. However, patients told us they sometimes had difficulty accessing the practice. When we visited the practice, we observed that the practice quickly ran out of available appointments for patients. Patients were then signposted to NHS111 or the local out of hours service. Data from the National GP Patient Survey was below local and national averages for how easy it was to get through to the GP practice by phone. As a result of this, the provider had recently introduced a new cloud-based telephone system which they hoped would improve the experience for patients.

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. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Patients were also involved in decisions about their care.

The practice showed us examples of a new mental health template they had developed following an incident. Patients who required an appointment due to their mental health were taken through a series of questions which produced a score and were coded as red, amber or green, depending on their need. If their scores indicated they required an emergency appointment (red) they would be offered one that day. If the score was moderate (amber), they would be offered an appointment within 2 days. If the score was low (green), they were offered a routine appointment.

The latest data available from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 89% of patients had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment. This was line with local and national results. Feedback gathered by the practice showed that from 846 responses 68% of patients rated the service they received as either 4 or 5 stars.

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.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure that people could mostly access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The majority of feedback we received from patients through give feedback on care submissions were in regard to difficulties in accessing the practice for appointments. As part of this assessment, we reviewed the providers appointment system. We saw that the provider had processes in place to stagger the availability of on the day appointments. The first batch of appointments were released at 8am with another batch at 10am, we saw that by 10:10 all these appointments had been filled. In order to mitigate this, the practice had a duty Dr system where staff could easily ask clinicians for advice when patients requested appointments. If it was deemed appropriate, they were added to the duty Dr list for an appointment that day. We saw that nurses could book patients in directly for cervical cancer screening clinics and child immunisation clinics. GPs were also able to book patients in for follow up appointments if these were required. Local care homes that the provider was responsible for had direct contact numbers for care coordinators where ward rounds would be booked in.

We saw examples of the practice signposting patients to more appropriate pathways, this included the pharmacy first scheme. The practice was also able to refer patients for physiotherapy through services run through their Primary Care Network (PCN). The practice also provided extended hours service at both their sites. Appointments were available from 7am on a Friday at the Thurnscoe site and 7am on a Wednesday at Goldthorpe. When the practice had reached capacity, they referred patients to NHS111 and their local out of hours service where patients could make direct appointments.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. Latest available data showed that 27% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone. This was below local (46%) and national (50%) averages. We found that the practice had recently introduced a new cloud-based telephone system which offered new benefits for patients such as a callback facility. Internal feedback gathered by the practice showed that from 844 responses almost 50% of patients had noticed an improvement when contacting the practice.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service was mostly positive around staff attitudes. We observed staff treat people equally and without discrimination. Staff 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. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.