The Old Court 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 all staff treated patients without discrimination. At our last inspection in October 2016 using the old methodology, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating stayed 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 and care plans were developed together with people in response to their changing needs. The care plans at the practice were written by GPs. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their conditions and involved in the planning and decision-making process.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. 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 population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, working to develop a service to meet the needs of the local Ukrainian refugee population. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers such as health visitors, frailty nurses and mental health teams.

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

The practice ensured that the patient population had access to information that was beneficial to their health. The practice provided access to interpreters, British Sign Language interpreters and a hearing loop. The staff listened to the patients to get information that assisted in providing care and signposted them to the right services where necessary. 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 changed as a result. The practice had a PPG to engage with the practice staff. We saw that complaints were managed in line with the practice policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback.

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

The National GP Patient Survey data (01/24 – 03/24) showed that 71% of respondents were positive about the overall experience of contacting the practice, which was above the expected national average of 67%. Fifty-two percent of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone which was also above the national expected average of 49%. Despite this, the practice had an action plan in place to improve on the results.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example, online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were on the ground floor level and an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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.

Staff were trained on equality and diversity, and patients were known to staff which helped to provide the right information and support to meet their needs. Feedback from patients using the service to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) was positive. Staff were described as very kind and helpful. Priority appointments were available for patients who needed them. Patients who were eligible were encouraged to attend health checks and reviews. Continuous training helped the practice to stay relevant to people’s needs and provide patients with support.

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 practice worked collaboratively with other healthcare providers to support patients with end-of-life care. The patients were added to a high-risk register and a district nurse were actively involved in their care. Care records or information was shared through the clinical system. The Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) records were reviewed regularly by the practice and updated according to the Mental Capacity Act. Care plans were updated according to the changing needs of the patient. The wishes of the patient were respected.