Gants Hill 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

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 68 (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. Our review of clinical records showed 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.

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, working in collaboration with other practices in their PCN to meet the needs of patients and visiting patients in a local care home. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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.

The service made it accessible for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We reviewed the practices’ response to complaints and found they involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. However, from our review of the practice’s complaints log, we did not see evidence that complaints were used as a learning tool as there was a lack of sufficient detail recorded in the response and learning section of the log. We reviewed the practice’s complaints policy and found it did not include information about referring complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, although they were included in responses to patient complaints.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Results from the survey suggested there was dissatisfaction regarding access to the service, with 34% of respondents to the survey stating they found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone and 50% of respondents stating they had a good overall experience in contacting the GP. This was reflected in the feedback received from people we spoke to during the site visit as well as the PPG, who spoke about difficulties in getting through to the practice and obtaining appointments.

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. This included a new triage system and the introduction of cloud-based telephony to manage calls. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone, and there was a dedicated line in place for patients in end of life/palliative care.

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 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 made adjustments 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 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.

The practice worked closely with a nearby care home that looked after elderly residents. Feedback from the care home regarding the practice’s assistance and involvement was positive as they mentioned responsiveness and accessibility to provide medical attention when required.

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.