Hockley Farm Medical Practice

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 previous comprehensive assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 68 (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. 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. For example, staff had been care-navigation trained to ensure that each patient received the appropriate care from the appropriate clinician or service.

The practice had introduced an AI-supported clinical transcription tool, for clinicians. This tool was used to transcribe the consultation conversation and supported clinicians with their clinical documentation. Leaders explained the reasons for introducing the tool, which included reducing the amount of manual typing required during consultations which allowed clinicians to be more present and engaged with the patient. Leaders told us it supported their aim of delivering a more patient-centred consultation.

National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 52% of patients 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 significantly lower than the national average of 70%.

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 endeavour to meet the needs of its patient population.

For example, staff attended multi-disciplinary team meetings with other healthcare professionals; and information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required. Staff also informed us of their use of the ‘Joy App’ for patients which is a digital platform designed to enhance social prescribing by connecting healthcare professionals and patients with local community groups, and non-medical support services to help address issues like isolation, mental health, and financial stress.

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. Patients were informed about how to access their care records. If patients had difficulty using digital services, leaders told us reception staff helped them to ensure online inclusivity.

A range of health and wellbeing posters and leaflets were on display in the waiting area for patient information. The practice website provided a range of information about the services available for patients; health conditions; and information about how to make a complaint. In response to feedback from patients, leaders organised for the practice website to be developed with staff team information.

92% of respondents from the National GP Patient Survey Data felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment which was the same as the national average.

The practice endeavoured to listen to patient preferences when making decisions about their care. The NHS National Patient Survey data reported 74%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 below the national average of 87%.

The practice was actively working on improving listening to patients. Leaders told us they wanted to make it easier for patients to tell them about their experience. Feedback could be given verbally, online or in writing. Leaders recognised that patients have different communication preferences and had introduced a new digital option which provided an additional convenient route.

From May 2026, the practice introduced QR codes to make providing feedback quick and accessible. Patients were able to use their mobile device to provide feedback quickly. Posters with the QR codes were posted on the consultation room doors and patients were encouraged to scan the code before leaving their appointment.

Leaders told us the benefits of the QR-code system included making feedback easily accessible; reduced barriers to providing feedback; and helped staff identify trends and themes of areas for improvement. Staff also told us the positive feedback received from patients was used to recognise staff and celebrate good practice. During our onsite visit, we saw the ‘Wall of Love’ which had been installed in a staff area which featured printouts of patient compliments.

Since May 2026, the practice had received 187 patient reviews via the QR code system and there had been an improvement in the patient online reviews of the practice from 2 stars to 3.8 stars.

The practice had a complaints policy. We saw complaints were discussed and reviewed at reception and clinical meetings and the quarterly protected learning time meetings that all staff attended to improve the quality of care. Learning was shared with staff to ensure improvements were made.

We discussed with leaders changes that had been made as a result of feedback from patients. One example of learning related to a wart clinic incident, when a child had experienced blistering post procedure. An investigation identified the nurse had made an error and had left the wart treatment on the patient for longer than necessary. The practice took action to learn from this incident which included retraining the nurse and arranging for a GP to undertake these procedures with the nurse to observe and learn.

A second example related to patient privacy. In response to patient feedback, leaders had arranged for a new desk and a privacy screen at reception for patients when completing their digital triage and appointment booking forms.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice was open from 8.00am to 18:30pm Monday to Friday. Patients could receive extended access appointments on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from 18:30pm to 20:00pm and Saturday from 9:00am to 17:00pm.

From February 2025, the practice had implemented the ‘Rapid Health’ clinical appointment triage system, an automated clinical triage platform designed to assess patients' symptoms, determine the appropriate level of urgency and direct patients to suitable appointments. The system offers a range of appointment types, including face to face, telephone and online consultations, based on patients' clinical needs. Patients under the age of 16, care home residents, and housebound patients are exempt from using this Smart Triage system and are supported through alternative appointment booking arrangements. An on-call GP was available to provide clinical support and advice where required, including escalation of any concerns or queries from the triage process.

We reviewed data from the National GP Patient Survey relating to patient access to the service. Whilst the practice data was mostly in line with national data, the majority of access statistics were below 50%. For example:

41% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone which was below with the national average of 57%.

42% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website, which was below with the national average of 58%.

41% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app, which was below the national average of 54%.

44%of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, which was significantly below the national average of 69%.

Data shared from the NHS ‘Friends and Family Test’ however showed that the majority of patient experience about the practice was positive. 82% of patients surveyed said they found their care at the practice to be either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Good.’ In addition, from May 2026 to the time of our assessment, online patient reviews of the service had almost doubled in satisfaction from 2 stars to 3.8 stars.

We discussed access with leaders and the challenges related to patient access. Leaders explained the practice was situated within a geographical area of severe deprivation and a high number of the patient population experienced long-term conditions. The practice had implemented a number of initiatives to improve patient access. For example, they reviewed the telephone system and had introduced a call-back function; telephone statistics were now monitored on screens and analysed on a monthly basis; cancellation of appointments were made easier as any cancellation appointments were now directed to the front of the queue; and telephone calls were recorded for staff training purposes.

In addition, in response to patient feedback, leaders audited the GP rota which informed the recruitment of GPs covering 6–7 sessions which provided greater stability and continuity of care for patients. Leaders also explained that as a practice serving one of the most deprived areas of Leicester City, there was a high demand for care home and housebound services. Leaders therefore recruited 2 staff members with previous community nurse/health care assistant experience to strengthen the community nursing capacity.

As part of our assessment, we reviewed the practice premises. We found the practice was accessible for wheelchair users, and all consultation rooms were accessible on the ground floor. Disabled toilets were available as well as baby feeding and changing facilities. There was a car park on site with designated disabled parking spaces.

Staff treated people equally, without discrimination. 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. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experiences. For example, as an accredited Veteran Friendly Practice, they demonstrated a proactive approach to supporting former members of the armed forces.

Processes were in place to ensure vulnerable people could register at the practice such as people who were homeless.

For patients with learning disabilities, the practice had a lead GP and care co-ordinators who acted as a point of contact for them and assisted with accessing external resources for them. Staff told us extended appointments were available for patients with learning disabilities and staff endeavoured to meet as many needs of these patients in 1 visit. Patients with learning disabilities could access quieter areas in the practice if required and following our onsite visit, the practice had arranged for sensory packs to be available for patients who needed them.

For patients with hearing impairments, the practice was equipped with a hearing loop system. For patients whose first language was not English, the practice was able to access interpreting services for them.

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. Palliative patients were able to have home visits and care packages to ensure their wishes were followed and carried out in their final stages of life.