South View Partnership

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 assessed all quality statements from this key question. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. The rating remains good following this assessment. The service met people’s needs in most cases, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. However, patient feedback indicated that patients experienced difficulty in contacting the service by telephone and were not always able to access appointments at a time that suited them.

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 had access to appointments provided by a range of healthcare professionals including GPs, nurse practitioner, pharmacist and pharmacist technician, practice nurses and a healthcare assistant. Patients could book appointments online, in person or by telephone. The service operated a triage system to ensure that appointments met patients’ individual needs. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in decisions about their care needs. The service employed two care-coordinators who advised patients on the options which would best suit their individual needs.

A service was also delivered through theHousebound Inequalities Project, which was led bythe primary care network. This service was designed to identify housebound patients who were frail or isolated and to provide home visits by social prescribers and care-coordinators to assess both the health and social needs of the patient, collect vital signs, and ensure follow-up from GPs or pharmacists as needed.

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. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. This included participation in a programme aimed at improving the quality of life experienced by patients with learning disabilities.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. This included a patient leaflet detailing the services provided and how patients could make an appointment or share feedback. Information to promote the uptake 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 also informed of 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. The practice had a designated complaints lead. Information about how to complain was readily available at reception and on the practice website. We spoke to representatives of the PPG who told us that leaders listened to and acted on feedback and used this to improve patient experience.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The result of the National GP patient survey showed that the service was performing below national averages in this area. For example, 33% of patients were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment (National Average 53%), 34% of patients felt that it was easy to contact the service by telephone (National Average 50%), and 59% were satisfied with their overall experience of contacting the practice (National Average 67%). CQC received feedback which suggested that patients were not always satisfied with the online triage service operated by the practice. However, we found that efforts were made to support patients to use this system including by completing triage forms on behalf of patients and including helpful information in the patient newsletter. Furthermore, feedback from the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 54% of patients said they find it easy to contact this GP practice using their website (National Average 48%). The service also took steps to improve access by introducing additional Saturday morning clinics.

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. The service proactively identified carers and advised them of the support available.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including the primary care network, to address any local health inequalities. This included theHousebound Inequalities Project.Staff also helped patients tocomplete online forms in person or over the phone to ensure digitally excluded patients were supported.

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.