Eden 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. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating good.

This service scored 79 (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. 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.

Feedback from people who used the service was overwhelmingly positive. People expressed an appreciation of the empathy and commitment shown by staff.Feedback highlighted effective diagnosis, treatment, and compassionate medical care from doctors and nurses. People felt listened to, informed, and taken seriously.

Extended appointments were available for those who needed them, and the service accommodated people had specific needs around where they waited for appointments and when they were seen.

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 worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the local Primary Care Network (PCN), who provided appointments with a range of different health care professionals, as well as the local GP federation who provided additional appointments through the ‘on day’ service. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider for services such as the home visiting service.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that 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. Following an incident whereby reception staff had been unable to establish the language spoken by an individual, the service developed a crib sheet of languages, written in both English and the language. This meant people who could not read or speak English, were able to recognise their language and share this information with staff. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

Health promotion and information leaflets were available. For example, carers support, mental health, deafness support and home from hospital.

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.

Complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Information on how to escalate concerns was shared with people in the service response. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. The results were shared with staff every month and were on display in staff areas.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service offered on the day appointments and routine appointments, bookable up to 7 days in advance. The nursing team offered evening appointments to accommodate working people. The majority of people booked appointments either in person or via the telephone. The service could book on the day in hours appointments through the local GP federation.

National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the service and accessing appointments. Indicators showed 96% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, this was significantly above the national average of 70%. In addition, 91% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, this was significantly above the national average of 53%.

Consulting and treatment rooms were on the ground floor and there was level entry to the building with electronic doors. Facilities for disabled people included a low level reception counter for wheelchair users, a disabled toilet and a disabled parking space. Baby changing facilities were also available.

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 provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, people who found sitting in the waiting room distressing were offered a quiet area in which to wait for their appointment.

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. People who required additional care and support were discussed during the regular multi-disciplinary team meetings.