Ordsall Health 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

RESPONSIVE:

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

People using Ordsall Health Surgery were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand.

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.

Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

People participated in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

Ordsall Health Surgery 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.

Plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients.

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

Ordsall Health Surgery had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people in their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services, such as schools and mental health support groups to promote and meet the needs of its patient population and to promote the uptake of screening programmes.

There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community health and social care providers.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the up-take of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. 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.

Patient were supported to access online services by team members, and, under certain circumstances, there was facility for people to access most services without going online.

Leaders recognised and provided additional support to people who did not speak English and people who did not have computers.

Leaders also took steps to reach out, through schools, work placements into communities who were fearful of the childhood immunisation program.

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 as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) reported that the practice always sent a representative to meetings who would feedback comments and observations.

In the main, representatives from the PPG felt the provider took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service. The PPG explained steps taken to improve access were directly due to feedback from patients to the practice, friends and family results and previous NHS GP patient survey results.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Ordsall Health Surgery had spearheaded a project to investigate the reasons for poor uptake of breast screening opportunities. The project looked at uptake based on languages spoken by those who were eligible. By the conclusion of the project uptake had increased across all languages. The actions taken during the project are now embedded in the practice and other local practices.

The triage system meant that every patient had the option of a face-to-face appointment. The practice data showed 75% of appointments were face-to-face.

In the 2024 NHS GP patient survey the practice scored well above the national and local average for patients being able to see the health clinician of their choice when seeking an appointment.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service.

Action to improve access included, providing support sessions at the practice for patients to get help signing up for on-line services; they introduced reasonable adjustments as required for patients where on-line services could not be used.

People could access the service in ways to suit their needs, for example online, in person and by telephone.

The GP partners completed or organised home visits where required.

Ordsall Health Surgery leaders were aware of the different barriers to access and were keen to learn from and work with organisations focused on equality.

People with no fixed abode are able to attend the surgery and receive health screening and treatment.

People with a learning disability were provided with longer appointments if required.

Treatment rooms were on the ground floor and entry was via an automatic door.

In addition to consulting rooms there was a private room that could be used for nursing mothers or to provide a quiet space.

Deprivation within the practice population group is 2, this means people are experiencing financial and social challenges which impact of their physical and mental health. Ordsall Health Surgery had approximately 46 patients joining the practice and 38 leaving the practice each week.

The deprivation level and turnover of patients means efficiency of processes for: sharing information; monitoring chronic conditions; following-up on test results; or achieving national health-promotion targets, were being constantly tested. We assess that these processes were robust, in that, outcomes for patients were in keeping with or better than practices with a more stable and affluent patient population.

Staff and leaders sought information from people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide tailored care, support and treatment.

People who traditionally find it difficult to access care and treatment told us that they were well treated and experienced positive outcomes. For example: people who identified themselves as carers told us they were invited for health checks and given longer appointments in order discuss all concerns emotional, social and physical and, people with serious mental illnesses told us care and treatment from the practice team, had supported them back into the mainstream of life.

We saw that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted support in light of 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.

We saw that staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not 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. People described being given time to discuss important decisions about treatment and care.

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.