Dr Jefferies and Partners

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 inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained the same. There was partnership working to make sure that care and treatment met the diverse needs of the community. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Alerts were added to patient records so staff could identify additional needs or preferences. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. The staff demonstrated patient involvement in their care and treatment, for example, in DNACPR decisions. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The staff 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, the practice was actively involved in their local primary care network (PCN), where they worked with other practices to improve the local health inequalities. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers, information was available on a range of services people could access or self-refer to, which included carer support, drug and alcohol, and mental health services.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff told us information was available to patients in their reception area and on the practice's website. The practice website contained details on how to make an appointment, the services available, and resources.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. They would highlight patients' records if they had any communication or accessibility needs, which staff gathered when a patient registered and opportunistically. 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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Complaints were acknowledged, and investigated, people were given an apology, actions were taken and learning was shared with the team in meetings. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. The practice also recorded and reviewed compliments.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice was open from 8am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday, and patients had access to out-of-hours services. The website also provided information on accessibility for the out of hours sites. The site was accessible to people with additional needs including disabled/pram access.

In response to feedback from members of the community, the practice had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and patients had access to extended hours.

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. The national GP patient survey found 74% of patients had a good experience of contacting the practice (national 70%, local 71%), 87% found the reception staff very helpful (national 83% and local 82%). In addition to this 68% of patients found contact through the website fairly to very easy and 66% of patients found it easy to contact the practice by phone (national 51%, local 52%).

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the practice 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 made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

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 reviewed showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The practice also offered home visits where appropriate. Staff and leaders also told us that the practice had a palliative care register. We did not receive any patient feedback that directly related to planning for the future.