Drs Jones & Blaylock Also known as Throckley Primary Care

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 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. 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 staff was consistent, they said they worked well together as a team to provide good care for patients.

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. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with a community group to inform patients and promote services. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

We sought feedback from the 3 care homes where the practice had patients who were resident there. They told us that access to the practice was straightforward and the practice responded well to their requests for home visits, aside from the weekly allocated dedicated GP time on a weekly basis, to continue to strengthen joint working.

There was a process for identifying people with extra healthcare and communication needs. Alerts were added to their clinical records so that staff were immediately aware of how to assist them.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff communicated with patients in a way that helped them to understand their care, treatment and condition, and any advice given. They helped patients and their carers find further information and access community and advocacy services. They had systems in place to access translation services. 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. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Our review of the complaints found they had all been responded to in a timely manner and in line with the practice’s policy and procedure. The practice had received 10 formal complaints in the 12 months preceding our assessment. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The practice had a patient participation group (PPG), however since COVID – 19 the uptake from patients and carers was minimal with 4 patients attending the last meeting. The Practice was trying to promote this to gain further feedback. However, people's views were also collected through the NHS Friends and Family Test including comments, compliments and complaints.

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

The percentage of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 74.5% compared to the national average of 49.7%. The percentage of respondents to the same survey who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 85% compared to the national average of 67.3%.

The provider demonstrated how people who may face barriers based on their protected characteristics could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They accessed this in a way that worked for them, promoting equality, and removing barriers or delays. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider had identified changes to improve access to the service from feedback from members of the community. For example, they had extended times for nurse appointments to earlier and later in the day. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

The practice had been purpose built, and treatment rooms were available on the ground floor for easy access.

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. According to the National GP Patient Survey carried out between January and March 2024, patients were satisfied with access to the practice. Figures showed the practice performed above national averages in the access indicators. Leaders told us they regularly reviewed access and appointment information.

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 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.

There was a process for identifying and coding housebound patients, who were offered home visits. There were processes in place for prioritising vulnerable groups at risk of deterioration, including children and people receiving end of life care.

Information was available on the practice website on how to access an appointment online and by the telephone or in person when the practice was open, and how to access urgent care when the practice was closed.

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.

Care home leaders told us GP’s assigned to their homes demonstrated exceptional skills and commitment in helping people, their families and carers to explore and record their wishes about care at the end of their lives and to plan how those would be met.