Heswall and Pensby Group Practice

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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 provided care and treatment that reflected people's individual needs, preferences and circumstances. Staff adapted care planning and support according to people's health needs, personal goals and changing circumstances.

People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and were supported to participate in planning their future care. Staff considered people's wishes, quality of life and individual preferences when discussing treatment and support options.

The provider adapted communication and support to help people understand information and engage with their care. Additional support was available for people who required reasonable adjustments or who experienced barriers to accessing services.

The service provided tailored support for people with additional or complex needs, including people with a learning disability, care home residents and those requiring support from Social Prescribers. For example, people with a learning disability could receive reviews in their own homes where appropriate.

Care planning and review arrangements were adjusted where necessary to reflect individual circumstances, preferences and goals.

The service promoted continuity of care, particularly for people with complex needs, long-term conditions, care home residents and those approaching the end of life. Staff worked together to ensure people received coordinated care and support that reflected their individual needs.

The provider worked collaboratively with a range of health and care services to support joined-up care. This included working with community services, social prescribing teams and specialist services to help ensure people received appropriate support and follow-up.

The service had arrangements in place to support continuity of care following referral, discharge from hospital and changes in people's health needs. Staff reviewed care pathways and followed up people where appropriate to help reduce the risk of delays in care.

Continuity of care was prioritised for people with more complex needs. For example, a dedicated advanced practitioner provided ongoing support to care home residents and developed relationships with residents and staff.

Feedback from care homes indicated that the service worked collaboratively with other professionals and provided continuity of care through clinicians who understood residents' needs and circumstances.

The service provided information in a way that helped people understand their care, treatment and support. Staff took account of people's communication needs and preferences and adapted information where required. Interpreter services, including British Sign Language, and other communication support were available when needed.

Staff discussed treatment options, risks, benefits and next steps with people and checked their understanding before decisions were made. People were encouraged to ask questions and participate in discussions about their care and treatment.

Patients received information to support them following changes to their treatment and after discharge from hospital. Information about community services, wellbeing support and social prescribing opportunities was also available where appropriate.

Leaders used feedback from complaints and patient experience information to identify opportunities to improve communication and the information provided to patients.

The service used a range of methods to gather feedback from people, including surveys, complaints, the PPG and national patient feedback programmes. Leaders used this information to understand people's experiences and identify opportunities for improvement.

The provider involved people in decisions about services and reviewed the impact of changes over time through ongoing engagement and repeat surveys. Feedback had been used to inform improvements to areas including access, continuity of care and patient communications. For example, a dedicated prescription team email address was introduced following patient feedback regarding difficulties contacting the service by telephone.

Complaints were managed through an established process and learning from complaints was used to support service improvement. Leaders reviewed themes and trends and used this information to inform changes to policies, processes and service delivery.

The provider maintained an active PPG and provided opportunities for people to share feedback about their experiences of care and treatment. Whilst relationships between the provider and the group had improved, leaders and members recognised there was an opportunity to strengthen the group's involvement in service development and wider patient engagement activities.

The service provided people with a range of ways to access care, including online, telephone and face-to-face contact. Staff supported people who were unable to use digital systems and adjusted access arrangements according to individual needs. However, access remained the most common concern identified through patient feedback, surveys and discussions with the PPG. Results from the 2026 National GP Patient Survey showed that 56% of respondents reported a good overall experience of contacting the service, compared with 73% locally and nationally. In addition, 52% of respondents found it easy to contact the service by telephone compared to 57% national and locally and 54% found it easy to contact the service using the website compared to 58% nationally and 55% locally, both below local and national averages.

Leaders reviewed demand, capacity and appointment availability and had implemented a range of initiatives to improve access. This included changes to access arrangements, digital services and communication with patients. Access had been formally recognised as an area requiring improvement and was monitored through governance and risk management processes.

Leaders recognised that digital access arrangements had not been fully adopted across the patient population, resulting in continued pressure on telephone access. The service continued to review patient feedback and explore further opportunities to improve access and reduce barriers for patients.

Additional support was available for people who may be more vulnerable or at greater risk of poor outcomes, including people with learning disabilities, care home residents and those requiring support from Social Prescribers.

The service used information about people's health and wellbeing to identify those who may be at increased risk of poorer health outcomes and provide additional support where required. Staff proactively identified people who may benefit from review, intervention or enhanced support rather than relying solely on people requesting help.

The provider considered the needs of people who may experience inequalities in health outcomes, including people with a learning disability, veterans, housebound patients and people with more complex health or social needs. Reasonable adjustments and personalised support were provided where appropriate. For example, the provider used routine reviews to identify people with a learning disability who were not collecting prescribed medicines and offered additional support where concerns were identified.

Staff took action to reduce barriers to engagement with services. This included identifying people who had not attended screening, immunisation or long-term condition reviews and providing additional support to help them access care and treatment.

The provider had also achieved veteran friendly accreditation and had systems in place to identify veterans and signpost them to relevant support services where appropriate.

The service had established processes to support future care planning and end-of-life care decisions. Staff reviewed people's wishes and preferences and updated care plans when circumstances changed.

Decisions about whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be attempted were reviewed regularly and considered people's wishes, capacity and changing clinical circumstances. Hospital decisions were reviewed as part of ongoing care planning arrangements.

The provider had arrangements in place to identify people who may require future care planning and additional support. The provider used a priority access system to help ensure patients approaching the end of life could access timely support, reviews and medicines when required. Regular multidisciplinary meetings were used to review these patients and ensure care plans remained up to date.

Care planning discussions involved people, families and carers where appropriate and information was shared with relevant services to support continuity of care.

Feedback from care homes indicated that residents approaching the end of life received ongoing support and regular review of their care needs.