Langport 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.

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.

Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered for people, with alerts added to medical records so the reception staff were aware that a person had additional needs.

Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan person centred care and treatment so that people’s needs could be met holistically.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people 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.

The service had a many long-standing clinical staff who provided continuity and stability with minimal requirements for locum staff. However, when locum staff had been needed the same staff were used to ensure consistency.

Our review of the clinical system demonstrated that referrals to other services were made promptly, and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The service 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 patient education evenings.

The service was an accredited Armed Forces veteran friendly practice which meant they had staff who understood military-related health conditions and provide appropriate information and could refer to specialist services.

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 and a hearing loop was also available.

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard and people who used the service 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. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. Staff told us that complaints were looked at as learning opportunities rather than problems.

Staff were aware of their duty of candour and to be open and honest when things went wrong. The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Surveys and reviewed the feedback for themes and trends.

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

People had the choice of face-to-face appointments or a telephone appointment, pre-bookable on the day. Housebound people were offered routine home visits by the home visiting team.

People living in 4 nearby care homes received weekly ward rounds from a multidisciplinary team.

The percentage of respondents to the GP Patient Survey who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was significantly higher than the national average. For example, 71% compared to the national average of 52%.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The surgery was purpose built and had treatment rooms available on the ground floor; automatic doors were fitted at the entrance for ease of access to the premises.

The service opening hours were 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Same day urgent appointments were available, and routine appointments could be booked in advance.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, 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.