Kingstone 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 practice 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 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 practice made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatments choices. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning of their care needs. Patients told us they felt involved in decisions about their care. As a small practice, staff knew their patients and provided examples of how there was a person-centred approach to delivering care. For example, reception staff were able to recognise when a patient did not collect their medication at a certain time. This was then communicated to clincians to follow up with the patient.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of their patients, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. For example, the practice adjusted the delivery of its services to meet the needs of people with a learning disability by providing longer appointments for annual health checks. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice website included accessible online tools such as dyslexia friendly and translation. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The practice 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 evidence of patient feedback being collected through a variety of methods such as online, in person and through the NHS Friends and Family Test. Staff provided us with examples of learning from patient feedback that had resulted in changes. For example, following patient feedback, the practice sent a text message to patients to let them know when their medication had been dispensed and was ready to collect. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and shared in regular team meetings.

The practice made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patients could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The practice regularly monitored calls including waiting times and identified changes to improve access to appointments. Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 90% of people responded positively to their experience of contacting their GP practice and 91% of people responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice by phone. Both were above local and national averages. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from patients, the practice had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, theymade changes to their website to improve access and had posters in reception advertising the NHS app. They also held drop in sessions to support patients registering on the NHS app and added app registration to the new patient process. The practice held a simulation activity to check whether patients were booked in to see the most appropriate clinician. To further improve staff confidence with booking the appropriate appointment, they created a care navigation tool. This allowed the receptionists to input queries they were unsure about and clinicians then inputted the relevant advice. Feedback we received from patients was very positive about accessing appointments in a timely manner with an appropriate clinician.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this. Staff treated people equally without discrimination. All clinical staff and leads from non-clinical teams had undertaken training on learning disability and autism. 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 processes in place to ensure people in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people could register at the practice.

People were given exceptional support 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 regularly attended multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings where they discussed patients who received end-of-life care. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This was reflected in the positive feedback we received off patients who had family members that received end-of-life care off the practice. The practice supported and respected patients wishes and supported them in their end of life. This is demonstrated in the higher than average number of patients who died at home.