Thurleigh Road 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

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.

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 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 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.

Results from the national GP survey 2024 showed 85% of participants felt, they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment which was slightly below the local average of 92% and the national average of 91%..

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language and online translation services.

The practice made adjustments when patients found it difficult to access services. For example, the practice had recently introduced total triage service. If patients were unable to complete the online form in order to book an appointment, practice staff would assist them in booking an appointment.

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 to promote the take up of screening programmes. Partners informed us they offered longer appointments for patients with complex needs. Also as a result of patient feedback appointments time were increased from 10 minutes to 15 minutes.

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

Data from the GP Patient survey 2024 showed that 33% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using their website. This was lower than the local 55% and national average of 48%.

The practice was in the process of updating their website, it could be translated into different languages. The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. It also provided information about how to access support for a range of issues. For example, the social prescriber was able to signpost patients to services to support both physical and mental health.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

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.

Results from the national GP survey 2024 showed a total of 79% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, which was lower than the local average of 89% and the national average of 87%.

However, 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, the practice had an active PPG, who they engaged with and worked closely with, they informed us the practice listened to them when they raised concerns regarding patients being digitally excluded, putting systems in place for helping patients who were terminally ill.

The most recent GP Patient Survey data, from April 2024, showed 26% of patients found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, which was lower than the local average 60% and national average of 50%. The practice was aware of the lower score in relation to the GP patient survey and had analysed the data, reviewed the survey with the PPG and came up with an action plan, they also undertook their own patient survey.

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. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. Longer appointments were also available to patients in general if the GP felt this was needed. Face to face appointments were now the default with 15-minute appointments replacing 10-minute ones. Patients could still request a phone appointment. The practice had implemented a new cloud-based telephone system which gave information about a patient’s place in the phone queue and also offered the option for the surgery to phone the patient back to save waiting on the phone.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. Wheelchairs and prams could fit through treatment room doors. There was a disabled toilet with a handrail and emergency cord.

For people with hearing difficulties there was a hearing loop system in reception which could be moved to assist patients during their consultation. In addition, there were translation services available to support patients whose first language was not English, together with access to British Sign Language interpreters.

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. Staff treated 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. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted 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 such as homeless people and Travellers.

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. For example, staff told us they worked closely with the local hospice, and they made sure patient urgent care plans were in place.