St Martin's Gate 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 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. Feedback was positive from people who used the service about person-centred care. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

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 including the primary care network (PCN) to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, they had a lead GP for women’s health who had completed additional training and provided women’s health clinics.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. 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 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 mostly managed in line with the practice’s policy. The patient participation group (PPG) told us they felt that if they were to raise a complaint, it would be handled in a timely manner. Learning from feedback including complaints was evident. For example, following patient feedback, the practice developed their website to allow patients to find useful information and provided leaflets online so they could print them off themselves without having to come to the surgery to collect them.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and NHS Friends and Family Test, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they audited the telephone calls to understand the demand and capacity. As a result, they introduced a rota to ensure cover at the busiest times and days of the week. They also introduced the option of patients receiving a callback rather than waiting to have their call answered. Feedback from patients who had opted for callback was mainly positive. People could access the service to suit their needs for example, online, in person and by telephone. We saw there were routine appointments available in 2 days’ time and urgent appointments were available on the same day.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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.

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.