The Avenues 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

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. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Latest results from the National GP Patients survey showed that 83% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice. This was in line with the national average of 83% but slightly below the local average of 86%.

The service knew its patients well and could quickly identify their needs without relying solely on clinical records. Friends and family data and feedback received by CQC from patients supported this.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so 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 patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups.

There was a carers champion who held regular drop‑in sessions, and a reasonable adjustments champion who worked alongside the registration team. The practice also had an NHS Ambassador who delivered training sessions to help patients use the NHS App.

The provider worked with other practices within their Primary Care Network (PCN) to offer extended access, and flu and covid vaccination programmes.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey, showed 96% of patients reported that they knew what the next step would be within 2 days of contacting their GP practice. This figure was slightly higher than the local average and national average of 93%.

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 had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, processes had been put in place to ensure that death certificates were completed in a timely manner to ensure that patients religious and cultural beliefs could be honoured.

The practice aimed to acknowledged complaints within 3 working days, followed by a thorough investigation. A review of complaints showed that complainants were acknowledged in a timely manner, and a thorough investigation was carried out. Outcomes were communicated to the complainant. If complainants were not satisfied with the response, they were signposted to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman and other advocacy services. The practice conducted analysis of complaints to identify recurring themes and trends.

The service endeavoured to make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Results from the latest National GP Patient Survey showed that the practice was below local and national average on how easy it was to contact the GP practice by phone. The practice achieved 33%, the local average was 56% and national average 53%. The results were also significantly lower for patients describing their experience of contacting their GP practice as good with 54% compared with the local average of 72% and national average of 70%. The practice had recently implemented a callback system which had made a difference on waiting times to get through to the practice by telephone. They had also changed the rotas of reception staff to ensure there was enough staff when demand was at its highest. Feedback received by CQC from patients did not reflect the results of the National GP Patient Survey. CQC received extensive feedback from patients with the vast majority stating that they had been able to access appointments in a timely manner.

A review of the practice’s appointment system showed that patients were able to book appointments for the same day. We also saw that patients were able to prebook appointments for the nursing team and healthcare assistants for the upcoming weeks. Staff were trained in care navigation and were able to effectively signpost patients to the most appropriate outcomes. The review showed an appropriate triage of a patient who was given a face-to-face appointment later that day. Staff were trained to look out for “red flag” symptoms such as potential signs of sepsis or meningitis. All patients were advised on what to do if their symptoms deteriorated.

Staff were able to signpost patients to the most appropriate pathway when required. This included social prescribers, the pharmacy first scheme and the local out of hours and minor injuries unit.

The practice worked with their PCN to offer extended access appointments. These are appointments offered outside of normal working hours, such as evenings or weekends.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and first floor. Due to the layout of the building, there was not a lift available. Patients with mobility issues were given appointments on the ground floor. A ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance of the building.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Feedback received directly by CQC showed that patients were very positive about how staff treated them, with several praising staff attitudes as kind and caring. Multiple patients told us they had been a patient at the practice since birth and would not want to register anywhere else.

We observed staff treat 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. For example, the practice had a reasonable adjustments champion, they identified patients who required additional support and could refer them to other local initiatives.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or 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.