The Cedars 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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand, responding and support people with individual needs. 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.

Staff had specialist areas of work and supported people to understand their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. Staff told us patient preferences were taken into consideration when booking appointments (for example, religion). Female and male staff were available at the practice. Where appropriate, staff included carers and dependants were involved in the planning and making shared decisions about the person’s care and treatment.

People received care and treatment from the service that demonstrated an understanding the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were delivered flexibly. People’s care and treatment met their assessed needs and considered peoples preferences.

There were effective systems in place to ensure newly diagnosed people had access to information about their conditions and had been signposted to support services they may wish to access.

Staff told us they kept people and those important to them updated on the outcome of concerns reported. We reviewed complaint records and saw there was an established and effective system to respond and learn from complaints. The provider acted with integrity acknowledging where improvements could be made and introducing changes. People had been updated in a timely and appropriate manner.

There were established and effective processes for people to feedback on the service and care they receive independently of the national GP patient survey or Friends and Family test. The practice had advertised their patient participation group as an established means of communicating with patients and understood the potential impact of changes to how they deliver services. The members met in person and minutes of the meeting were available for people to review and comment on.

There were established and effective processes in place to monitor and respond to changes in patient demand for services and clinical risks. There was a triage system to assist staff to appropriate prioritise people according to clinical needs. We observed the process and found it to be efficient with timely and accessible clinical oversight.

The practice offered extended hours appointments through their primary care network to secure people timely access to care. Text and telephone call reminders were sent to patients to reduce non-attendance rates and arrangements were in place for prioritising patients.

People reported high levels of satisfaction with the service in the national GP patient survey. They told us they could contact the practice by telephone or via their website. They had confidence in the staff and care provided to them. The practice acknowledged further improvements were required and had commissioned a new triage system to improve access to their service and reduce inequalities in patient experiences.

Staff were trained and considered how they provided care, support and treatment to meet individual needs. For example, appointments were arranged to meet the needs of the individual and included any support required for people important to them and/or who cared for them. Staff considered the time and duration of the appointment, environment and staff required.

There were established processes in place to assess patient experiences and their outcomes. Systems were in place to ensure trained staff followed up and reviewed clinical referrals and results.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. People who may be approaching the end of their life were identified (including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable). This information was shared with other services and staff. People’s decisions and what mattered to them were delivered through personalised care plans that were shared with others who may need to be informed. When people wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wished. When any treatment was changed or withdrawn, professionals communicated and managed this openly and sensitively.

When individuals expressed a desire for greater independence and fewer care interventions that may benefit them, professionals collaborated to help them reach their goals.