Nunwell 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 practice made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The practice worked in partnership with other organisations to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs. 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. The patient participation group (PPG) were positive about their involvement with the practice and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient care.

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. 43%of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey felt they usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional which was higher than the local average of 42% and national average of 40%. The practice wanted to improve this outcome so have implemented additional GP follow up slots to enable GPs to book patients in for a follow up review with the same clinician to enable continuity. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice provided care for 4 care homes, each GP partner had oversight of a care home each which allowed them to get to know the staff and patients well. Information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required. 92%of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment which was in line with the national average. 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 82% of respondents felt they 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 than the local average of 72% and 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. The practice website was available in different languages and included information about how to make a complaint. Complaints were dealt with in line with their policy and discussed in governance meetings. Patients were informed about how to access their care records. A range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display for patient information.

People were encouraged to leave feedback and share ideas about their care and treatment. Feedback could be given verbally or written. NHS Friends and Family Test feedback was regularly reviewed. The practice held quarterly meetings with the Patient Participation Group (PPG). This was an opportunity for the PPG to share the views of others that used the practice. The PPG often attended flu clinics to speak with patients to gather their feedback. The PPG told us they had a good relationship with the practice and felt listened to and involved in decision making. The practice had a complaints policy, and complaints were discussed and reviewed to improve the quality of care. The practice involved people and listened to their preferences when making decisions. The NHS National Patient Survey data reported that 89%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 in line with the local average and 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, with access to out of hours services provided by Taurus Healthcare. Following patient feedback, the practice made efforts to further improve their appointment system. The appointment system was reviewed by the practice prior to our visit and showed that appointments were not being booked appropriately due to the availability of appointments and care navigation decision making. The telephone call flow was also reviewed and showed that patients were calling the practice in the first 2 hours of opening when appointments were not urgent. The practice promoted the use of the self-check in screen to enable receptionists to dedicate time to phone calls. The care navigation process was reviewed, and a duty GP was utilised to support the reception team. The NHS App was also encouraged. The practice intends to complete the same audit to review the findings. Data from the National GP Patient Survey highlighted that the practice scored higher than the national average for all questions related to access. 81% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the local average of 61% and national average of 53%. 61% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website, in comparison to the local average of 59% and national average of 51%. 72% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app, in comparison to the local average of 58% and national average of 49%. 93% of respondents found the receptionists helpful, in comparison to the local average of 88% and national average of 83%. Various appointment types were available such as in person or telephone consultations. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users, and all consultation rooms were located 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 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, 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. For example, sensory items were available on request. The practice had processes in place to ensure vulnerable people such as homeless patients or Travellers 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 discussed during monthly multi-disciplinary meetings.