Spring Gardens Group 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 the service met people’s needs, and 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 meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service demonstrated an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of local people and communities. This ensured care was joined-up, flexible, and thoughtfully designed to support choice and continuity.

We saw leaders and staff worked collaboratively with a range of partner organisations to meet the needs of its patient population. They had tailored their approach to reflect the diversity of the community building strong relationships with local homeless charities to ensure marginalised individuals could access compassionate, reliable care, and provided GP services to more than 100 refugees living in a nearby hotel. These areas of work were both complex and demanding for a busy practice, yet the team consistently showed commitment, resilience, and a deep sense of responsibility. Their efforts, supported by effective partnerships across the local system, ensured people received high-quality care, support, and treatment. There were well-established and meaningful mechanisms in place for ongoing engagement with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which 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.

A GP provided a annual talk to local primary school children about development changes to improve their knowledge and support wellbeing. The practice was accredited as an autism friendly practice. Staff with a specialist interest in this area ensured staff understood the best way to provide information to autistic people. A patient with lived experience of autism had provided a talk to staff to improve their understanding of autistic people who used their service.

The service 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. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, the practice now automatically offers a face-to-face meeting for someone who has made a formal complaint in the early part of the process to discuss this in person with the individual. This has improved communication and can support a complaint being sorted more quickly.

Leaders and staff ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to National GP Patient Survey results and wider community feedback, the provider had identified and implemented changes to improve access. For example, appointment times had been extended for people with a learning disability, who were supported by a dedicated member of staff to ensure continuity of care.

People could access the service in a range of ways to suit their needs, including online, in person, and by telephone. Improvements had been made to the appointment system following patient feedback. This included introducing a red, amber, green rating system to categorise appointments as urgent, non‑urgent, or for advance booking. As this system was newly implemented, it was being closely monitored to identify and address any issues promptly. Staff told us they felt the new system was working well and made allocation of appointments easier to manage.

The service had accessible facilities, including ground‑floor treatment rooms and onsite parking with designated disabled spaces.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The practice took steps to improve access for people from groups who may experience health inequalities, such as those experiencing homelessness. These patients could be allocated appointments which allowed them to wait to see the duty doctor, supporting timely access and helping reduce disparities in health outcomes for this patient group.

Staff had built strong relationships with local organisations and charities which enabled them to provide treatment and support to a group of refugees who were being housed in a local hotel. The care provided was wider than that of medical treatment as this group were facing many obstacles such as isolation, no access to jobs, the slow process of applications and health issues relating to trauma and physical and mental wellbeing. Added to this, they had to manage the expectations of the refugees in what they could do as a medical practice. Staff worked closely with other organisations to ensure this group of people received the required health screening necessary to prevent the risk of cross infection amongst people living closely together.

One GP had been given the opportunity to complete a health inequalities fellowship. It was particularly aimed at those working in areas of deprivation and with communities where attendance to the GP practice can be difficult. This information had benefitted the team and helped to reduce the number of people who did not attend appointments.

People were supported to plan for important life changes and were given sufficient time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Our review of clinical records showed people were encouraged to consider and document their preferences for end of life care, including decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Where appropriate, this information was shared with other services to support coordinated and person-centred care. Staff worked closely with the frailty team and with professionals involved in end of life care to ensure people received the care and treatment they wanted.