Belmont Medical Centre

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 practice made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. For example, reception staff had been care-navigation trained to ensure that each patient received the appropriate care from the appropriate clinician. The practice received positive feedback in response to this change as this improved patient experience. Patient feedback received directly to us Data from the National Patient Survey showed that 94% of respondents felt theywere involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, which was higher than the national average of 91%. Friends and Family Test data was reviewed monthly and was showcased on a noticeboard for staff. We asked patients to ‘Give Feedback on Care’ and we received positive responses. For example, patients felt clinicians were knowledgeable and took their time to listen to deliver the best suitable care and some patients felt nothing was too much trouble.

The practice 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 worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice is part of a proactive primary care network (PCN) that share best practice and quality improvement during quarterly meetings. The practice utilised staff within the PCN such as the social prescribers, pharmacy team, safeguarding team and care home team. To improve continuity of care, the practice allocated patients over 75 years old with 4 or more comorbidities to a care-coordinator to enable staff to get to know the patient and what is needed. Information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required. They tailored their services to meet the diverse needs of patients and promoted health education and preventative care initiatives. National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 73% of respondents felt they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses which was higher the national average at 69%.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Patients were informed about how to access their care records. If patients had difficulty using digital services, patients were referred to the social prescriber to support patients, providing online inclusivity. A range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display for patient information. The practice website was available in different languages and included information about how to make a complaint. The practice had a complaints policy. Most complaints were dealt with in line with their policy; however not all complaint responses signposted the patient to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) if a patient was not satisfied with the outcome. Complaints were discussed during weekly business meetings and the lessons learnt were shared with the wider team during quarterly meetings to ensure all staff were aware of the consequential changes. 91% of respondents from the National GP Patient Survey Data felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care and treatment. Patients were encouraged to leave feedback. Feedback could be given verbally or written. The practice had a complaints policy. We saw complaints were discussed and reviewed to improve the quality of care. Learning was shared with staff to ensure improvements were made. The practice involved people and listened to their preferences when making decisions. The NHS National Patient Survey data reported 88%of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, which was higher than the national average of 87%.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday.Data from the National GP Patient Survey highlighted that the practice scored higher than the national average for all questions related to access; 62% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the national average of 53%. 61% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website, in comparison to the national average of 51%. 55% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app, in comparison to the national average of 49%. Various appointment types were available such as online, in person or telephone consultations. A duty GP and advanced nurse practitioner were available to assist in the triage process. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users, and all consultation rooms were accessible on the ground floor. There was a car park on site with designated disabled parking spaces.

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. For example, the practice had completed outreach work in collaboration with the wellbeing team to improve the uptake of health checks and encourage attendance at community venues. The practice also outreached to non-engaged diabetic patients to improve their long-term condition appointment. Staff treated people equally, without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experiences. The practice had processes in place to ensure vulnerable people could register at the practice. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or did not have access to the internet.

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. Palliative patients were able to have home visits and care packages to ensure their wishes were followed and carried out in their final stages of life.