Malvern Health 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 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 and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Staff shared examples of how patients were at the centre of their care, and they used patient feedback to ensure care was optimum.

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. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population and provide positive outcomes. For example, the practice utilised social prescribing within the practice. They recently worked with them to run a search to identify patients who were on long term sick notes. The social prescribing team were then able to offer those patients further support and advice. The practice tailored its services to meet the needs of its community. For example, one patient told us they required appointments at a certain time and the practice were able to meet their needs.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. This information was easy for patients to find and included a clear and accessible practice website. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The practice 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. For example, prior to the practice changing to a triage model for appointments, they spoke with members of their Patient Participation Group (PPG) and staff to gain their feedback. 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. The practice regularly ran audits on their patient feedback to monitor it and make improvements. The practice regularly met with members of their PPG. PPG members told us they felt the practice listened to them and they had a good relationship with them. We received feedback off patients who provided examples of how they felt listened to and involved. For example, one patient told us when they were prescribed medicine, they had a telephone call with the GP who allowed them plenty of time to ask questions and provided reassurances to them.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice had a system in place to ensure there were appointments available on the day and bookable in advance with a variety of clinicians. The practice moved some routine appointments to earlier in the day on the clinic template which resulted in more same day appointments later in the day. This made it easier for the triaging GP and avoided patients having to rush in for same appointments. In response to the 2024 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 resulted in an improvement in patients accessing the practice through the telephone. We saw evidence of the practice regularly auditing telephone waiting times and making changes which resulted in call waiting times reducing. However, feedback we received off patients was mixed about their ability to contact the practice by telephone. Patients were positive about the triage system and contacting the practice online. We saw evidence that online queries were actioned on the same day.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The practice adjusted their environment to support patients with autism and additional sensory needs.

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. The practice had a palliative care register which was regularly reviewed, updated and discussed at multidisciplinary team meetings. The practice regularly reviewed all deaths including any unexpected deaths which enabled them to identify if there were any learning outcomes from them.