Morland Road 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 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. We saw evidence through our record review that patients, their families and other relevant agencies were involved in their care planning. 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. Staff told us they encouraged patients to get involved with local initiatives. For example, a project involved in upcycling and sewing that was run to support people experiencing isolation and promote mental wellbeing.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. For example, they worked with a local BME group to raise awareness about prostate cancer and increase screening numbers.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages if required. Staff told us that where people were not responding to initial correspondence, for example screening invitations, text messages were then sent in the patient’s language to ensure language was not a barrier to uptake.

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 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. The practice manager was responsible for receiving complaints and triaging them to the GPs, particularly any complaints relating to clinical matters. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

They adapted the service to meet the needs of patients. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability and other vulnerable groups. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Registration was generally online, but they had copies of registration forms in paper format for those who were not about to access it digitally.

The premises were step free and accessible for wheelchair users. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.

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.

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.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, they had alerts to identify if a patient had a learning difficulty or were autistic . These patients were always given on the day appointments and 30-minute appointment slots to ensure there was enough time to tend to their needs.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff told us homeless people could use the practice address for correspondence from other services such as hospital appointments.

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. The GPs visited those who were receiving end of life care bi-monthly to check in on them and see what or how their needs had changed to ensure they were fully supported.