Bredon Hill Surgery

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 79 (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. The practice worked in partnership with other organisations to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. The patient participation group (PPG) were very enthusiastic about their involvement with the practice and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient care. For example, the disabled parking spaces were widened and the waiting area for the dispensary was moved from outside to inside the practice with seating also available.

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. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. Information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required. They tailored their services to meet the diverse needs of patients and promoted health education and preventative care initiatives. National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 72% of respondents felt they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses which was higher the national average at 69%.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The practice website was available in different languages and included information about how to make a complaint. The practice held a complaints leaflet behind the desk at reception. During the onsite visit, this leaflet was not on display. Most complaints were dealt with in line with their policy, however not all complaint responses signposted the patient to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), if a patient was not satisfied with the outcome. The lessons learnt from complaints were discussed and shared in staff meetings to ensure all staff were aware of the consequential changes. Patients were informed about how to access their care records. A range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display for patient information.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care and treatment. Patients were encouraged to leave feedback. Feedback could be given verbally or written. Although feedback was often given by the NHS Friends and Family Test, this feedback was not always reviewed. However, regular meetings were held with the Patient Participation Group (PPG), where the PPG shared views of others that used the practice. The PPG told us they had a good relationship with the practice and felt listened to. The practice had a complaints policy. We saw complaints were discussed and reviewed to improve the quality of care. Learning was shared with staff to ensure improvements were made. The practice involved people and listened to their preferences when making decisions. The NHS National Patient Survey data reports that 93%of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, which was higher than the national average of 87%.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday, and patients with extended access until 8:30 pm once a week and patients had access to out-of-hours services.Data from the National GP Patient Survey highlighted that the practice scored higher than the national average for all questions related to access. 92% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the national average of 53%. 62% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website, in comparison to the national average of 51%. 70% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app, in comparison to the national average of 49%. 94% of respondents found the receptionists helpful, in comparison to the national average of 83%. Various appointment types were available such as online, in person or telephone consultations. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users, and all consultation rooms were accessible on the ground floor. There was a car park on site with designated disabled parking spaces.

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, without discrimination. Staff feedback reflected this. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experiences. The practice had processes in place to ensure vulnerable people such as homeless patients or Travellers could register at the practice. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or did not 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. The practice also offered home visits where appropriate.Palliative patients were discussed during monthly multi-disciplinary meetings.