Birtley Medical Group

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.
 

This service scored 71 (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. Patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. According to the National GP Patient Survey carried out between January and March 2024, 88% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was close to the England average, which was 91% and the ICS, which stood at 92%.
Processes and procedures were in place to ensure that people could receive support that was person-centred. This support reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

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. For example, palliative care patients had a named GP, and an alert was added to their records. This ensured that reception staff were able to book those patients with the appropriate GP when arranging appointments.
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, they worked collaboratively with the local care homes by providing regular patient reviews and vaccination programmes.
 

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. 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. Patients could raise concerns or share feedback online, by telephone or in person. The practice also carried out their own local patient survey with questions similar to the National GP Patient Survey.

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 because of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In the National GP Patient Survey carried out in 2024, 31% of patients found it easy to contact this GP practice on the phone. Although this was an improvement from the 15% in 2023, it still fell below the averages for England and the ICS which were 50% and 52% respectively. Direct patient feedback received by CQC also indicated that some people still found accessing appointments at this practice a challenge.
However, there was also evidence that showed the practice continued to work on improving access to the service. The practice regularly monitored call logs, and their records showed an overall improvement in the number of calls answered. This improvement was attributed to the new telephony system and a review of staff rotas to ensure sufficient staff cover during known peak call times. People could access the service using the NHS app, practice website, in person and by telephone. Where appropriate, home visits could also be arranged. Data from the practice’s own records and from the National GP Patient Survey indicated that a significant proportion of people found it easy to access the practice using the website and the NHS app. This was higher than comparative national and local data from the 2024 National GP Patient Survey results.
 

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.
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 reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, the practice made adjustments to accommodate the needs of some people with learning disabilities by ensuring they could wait in the car instead of the waiting room which could increase their anxiety. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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.