Drs Hussain & Kotekar Also known as New 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 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.

Staff 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. Of the people who responded to the National GP Patient Survey, 96%felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment.

Leaders and staff 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 to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Leaders supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs. 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. Some staff within the practice spoke multiple languages which meant patients could chose a clinician who could communicate with them without the need for an interpreter.

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.

Leaders ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed, when they needed it. In response to data from the National GP Patient Survey and feedback from the community, the provider identified changes to improve access. For example, patients could request extended appointments if they needed more time to discuss multiple or complex issues. The service could be accessed in various ways to suit individual needs, including online, in person, and by telephone. People were positive about the practice and staff, but some felt it was not always easy to get a non-urgent appointment when needed. Leaders addressed this by making non-urgent appointments available to book daily. Online requests were reviewed by a GP, and patients were offered appointments either face-to-face or by telephone if required. We viewed these appointments on the system and saw appointments were available on the day of the inspection.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback from people using the service both to the provider and to the CQC was positive. Staff treated everyone fairly and without discrimination. Leaders worked to remove barriers and partnered with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to address health inequalities. Staff valued inclusive care and made adjustments to support fairness in people’s experiences and outcomes. The provider had processes to help everyone register at the practice, including people in vulnerable situations such as those experiencing homelessness. Staff also used systems to collect and review feedback from all service users, including those who did not speak English or have internet access.

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. Staff regularly discussed patients who were at the end of their life with other professionals, such as district nurses, to ensure care was delivered in the best possible way to meet each patient’s needs.