Southfield Way 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

Most people were involved in planning and decisions about their care. People knew how to give feedback but were not advised how to escalate their complaint if they were not happy with the outcome or the management of them. Not all informal concerns had been documented or actioned to identify any common trends and themes for learning. Improvements had been made to the availability of appointments and a reduction in the complaints we had received about access. Telephone and online triage had been introduced with a balance of face to face, online and telephone appointments made available. Routine appointments were available with a range of clinicians within a short timescale. In the most recent national GP patient survey, 60% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by phone, which was higher than local and national averages. People were involved in planning their care as reflected in the patient survey with 88% of the respondents stating they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

This service scored 68 (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 generally 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.

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, as reflected in the practice results in the most recent National GP Survey and discussions we held with a representative of the PPG.

The service understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, their Primary Care Network (PCN) where people could access a range of services including social prescribing, pharmacy, mental health support and physiotherapy. Evening and weekend appointments were offered through the PCN.

The practice also worked with colleagues from the local hospice and the district nursing team. Regular meetings were held to review the needs of people who were approaching the end of their lives. The practice also provided a primary care service to 250 people in 4 local care homes.

Improvements had been made to the range of information available on the practice website and on notice boards within the practice waiting area. We saw information was more relevant. Posters and various health leaflets were displayed, however, some of the information was difficult to read and was not available in alternative formats. The practice told us they would address this. A carers board was available in the waiting room. This displayed information on local support groups such as PCN group/young carers and the council run support group.

People had access to interpreter services and a link was provided on their website to an accessibility statement. Information about what to do when the practice was closed or in an emergency, was not displayed outside of the practice. Information about how patients could access their care records was not easily accessible. Staff had access to an Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy. Although advertised, staff were unable to locate a hearing loop. Following our site visit the provider told us a hearing loop had since been obtained.

The practice had a complaints policy but did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Information about how to make a complaint was displayed in the practice but was not readily accessible on the provider website without having to use the search function.

Two complaint posters were displayed in the practice; a generic NHS poster with blank spaces to fill in but no detail had been added, and a poster designed and printed by the practice which directed patients to pick up a leaflet, but no leaflets were available. Both posters did not make it easy for people to know how to make a complaint, especially for those needing adjustments or in easy read formats.

Staff were aware of the complaints procedure and learning from complaints was discussed and shared in practice meetings to identify changes and make improvements. The practice maintained a log of formal complaints in addition to a ‘grumble log’. We sampled 2 complaints. No documented evidence was available on how the informal concern had been acknowledged or addressed and we were unable to ascertain if the complainant had received a response. No evidence of discussion, investigation or outcome was available on the formal complaint with the exception of the complaint being recorded as upheld. Following our site visit the provider told us they would improve the management of complaints.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed. Since the last assessment telephone and online triage had been introduced with a balance of face to face, online and telephone appointments made available. Pre-bookable routine appointments were available with a range of clinicians within a short timescale, (a GP appointment within 4 days, a nurse appointment within 3 days and an appointment with a health care assistant within 2 days). People could book a pre-bookable appointment up to 3 weeks in advance and had access to the Acute Visiting Service (AVS) every day to carry out home visits. The practice was part of the extended access scheme where pre-bookable appointments were offered after 7am and in the evenings and weekends at the Primary Care Network Hub.

Staff explained instances where they would refer patients for emergency care. They told us requests for continuity with a specific clinician would be supported wherever possible.

The Patent Participation Group (PPG) representative told us that access to appointments had definitely improved and this was reflected in the feedback we received and the National Patient GP Survey. Indicators showed 60% of respondents were positive about the overall experience of contacting the practice by phone, which was higher than the national average of 50%.

The practice was a ‘Safe Surgery’, which meant that they were committed to providing equal access to their services for everyone in their practice area, regardless of their immigration status. Extended appointments were available if required, for example, for people with a learning disability. Treatment rooms were located on the ground floor. Level access was provided to the building with touch pad automatic doors fitted to the entrance. People were able to park free of charge for 2 hours in an adjacent council owned car park, where disabled parking was available for people with reduced mobility.

Staff and leaders 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 was mainly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in 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. People waiting for their appointments were greeted in the waiting room by a clinician, who accompanied them to the consultation room for their appointment.

Most 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 149 patients had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNAR) decision. Of the 5 patients’ records we sampled; an assessment of capacity had not been undertaken for 1 patient who lacked the capacity to make a decision regarding DNAR. Following our site visit the provider told us they would carry out a mental capacity assessment on all patients who lack capacity, and they have since amended their policy to reflect this change. Information was shared when necessary, with other services including the out of hours team and other professionals during meetings held to discuss the changing needs people nearing the end of life.