Hull Family 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.

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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. National GP Patient Survey data, 2024, showed patient satisfaction with being involved in decisions about their care was slightly below the expected 91% at 86%. CQC received 328 feedback on care responses. Although there was some negative feedback, 249 patients responded with positive feedback relating to the all the staff teams. They told us they felt listened to and told us staff were kind, helpful and professional. Comments included I was made to feel important, felt safe in their care and their patient led care is outstanding.

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 the local council, patients and carers to promote the uptake of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers.

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

Information to promote the uptake of screening programmes was available in easy read formats. The practice had access to interpreter services and text messaging services were available in different languages. The online triage form to request services could be translated into different languages through a QR code and the practice were trialling a device which translated verbal conversation into different languages. The practice website could be adjusted in terms of font size and colour but was not available in different languages. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Staff in lead areas such as mental health and learning disability had worked with patients and carers to provide information in the most appropriate format and had implemented changes to the messaging system to encourage engagement.

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 because of patient feedback, including complaints. Complaints were responded to with a written apology where required and patients were advised on how to escalate complaints.

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

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from patients and staff the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. They had taken part in the General Practice Improvement Programme (GPIP) in 2024 and had implemented a major transformation in its access model. In May 2024 they introduced cloud-based telephony and a GP-led triage process to ensure patients could get an appointment when they needed one.

Practice data showed patient satisfaction had increased following the improvements, for example, 55% of patients who responded to a practice survey rated the practice as excellent after the changes, in comparison to 13% who gave this rating before the improvements.

Most patients who contacted CQC were positive about the new online booking system and found it very easy to navigate and were positive about the response to requests for appointments and the frequent reminders about appointments. Some patients found the new system difficult to navigate, although reception staff would assist patients to complete the required forms where necessary. Some patients said they had difficulty travelling to other branch sites. The practice had identified this issue from feedback in the December 2024 friends and family test and had developed an action plan to address this. We observed staff implementing these improvement actions by asking patients what their site preference was and if they were able to travel.

Staff told us the new systems worked well and there was good communication with the triage GPs. They told us they had received a lot of positive feedback from patients about the new systems, and this had significantly improved the experience of patients and staff alike.

Notes were placed on patients records about the amount of time required to meet specific needs which were considered when booking appointments for patients. Records were flagged by the triage GPs to prioritise patients’ need for an appointment.

Systems were in place to constantly monitor, review and adjust the availability of appointments.

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 to 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. 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.

Records 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. The care coordinator worked closely with patients, carers and community services to support patient’s needs.