Drs Lavin, Findlay, Remedios and Thompson Also known as Whiteacres Medical Centre

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 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 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 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, building relationships with community groups such as community transport to ensure people could access the practice. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Leaders ensured information provided was appropriate, accurate, and up to date, and delivered in formats tailored to individual needs. Staff had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. All information complied with the Accessible Information Standard, and people were informed about how to access their care records. Following feedback from the Patient Participation Group (PPG), leaders improved the website and leaflets by making them accessible in larger print and available in multiple languages, enabling more people to access information easily.

Leaders made it easy for people to share feedback, ideas, and complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved patients in decisions and explained what had changed as a result. Each week, leaders reserved time for staff to drop in, discuss ideas, and raise concerns, which helped staff feel listened to and engaged in shaping the practice. The practice managed complaints in line with its policy and demonstrated clear learning from them. Staff could recall changes made in response to patient feedback, including complaints.

Leaders ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the local community, the provider introduced several measures to improve access. For example, they extended appointment times for people with a learning disability and for those who required interpreter support because English was not their first language.To make booking easier, leaders designed a bespoke triage system which allowed people to access appointments online, in person, or by telephone. They acknowledged further work was needed to help people feel confident using this system and actively addressed this through ongoing engagement and support.Physical accessibility was also a priority. Treatment rooms were located on the ground floor, and the entrance was fitted with a ramp and automatic door to ensure the building was accessible to all.

Staff and leaders listened carefully to information about people most likely to experience inequality in care or outcomes and adapted their support accordingly. Feedback from people using the service, both to the provider and to CQC, was positive. Staff treated everyone fairly and without discrimination. Leaders actively looked for ways to remove barriers to improving people’s experiences and worked with local organisations, including voluntary groups, to tackle health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of inclusive care and made adjustments to ensure equity in experiences and outcomes. The provider had processes to help people register at the practice, including those in vulnerable situations such as homeless individuals and Travellers. Staff used suitable systems to collect and review feedback, including from people who did not speak English or lacked internet access. One staff member was responsible for ensuring reviews for people with a learning disability were completed. They used a personalised approach to contact each person individually, which increased engagement with the reviews.

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. Staff provided ongoing support and met with other professionals involved in end of life care including community nurses and specialist nurses from the local hospice to ensure people received the care in the way they wanted it to be delivered. 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, using a system connected to the clinical records.