The Summerhill 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 remains the same. The service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The service provided person centred care and treatment whereby people’s individual needs and wishes were respected and acted upon.

People who used the service provided positive feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. People were able to access the service in a timely way. The provider monitored patient access effectively and made changes in response to ensure patient satisfaction. For example, on Monday and Tuesday the practice had support from a paramedic and offered additional appointments.

People who used the service were supported to make decisions about their future care. Information about how to raise a complaint was provided to people. The provider understood their patient population and they identified and made changes to improve their service where required. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and outcomes. The provider worked within the primary care network (PCN) and supported local service developments. Continuity of care was offered to patients where required or when patients requested consultations with specific clinicians. The provider made reasonable adjustments to ensure the premises were accessible to patients who required disabled access. A wheelchair was available on-site for patients who required assistance.

The provider engaged positively with partner agencies, placing particular emphasis on services for older individuals residing in care homes. People were actively involved in planning their care and were supported to understand their options, including the right to decline or withdraw from treatment.

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. Peoples overall experience of contacting the GP service was positive as indicated in the National GP Patient survey which showed 88%, which was higher in comparison to the national average of 74%.

The provider achieved high levels of patient satisfaction in the GP National Patient Survey, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. Notably, 93% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally) found the reception and administrative team helpful, and 84% (compared to 74% nationally) rated their overall experience of the provider as good.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making 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.

We saw the provider worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The provider had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships to promote the take up of screening programmes.

The provider had established structured mechanisms for engaging with care homes. GP’s and other clinicians were assigned to designated care homes, where they collaborated closely with district nurses, social workers, and care home staff to promote continuity and coordination of care.

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

Leaders had a good understanding of the local population and complied with the accessible information standards within the practice. We saw the provider worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services. Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

Feedback from people who used the service in the National GP Patient survey showed that 99% of respondents (compared to 92% nationally) felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment.

The provider website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use

The service was good at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Patients responded positively in the National GP patient survey for questions related to the healthcare professional being good or very good at listening to them and involving them in decisions about their care and treatment.

During the assessment, feedback was obtained from three members of the Patient Participation Group (PPG). Although the group had recently been re-established with new members, feedback indicated that relationships between the PPG and the practice were positive. Plans were in place to support ongoing improvement initiatives, including cancer awareness campaigns targeting both men and women.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns, complaints or issues. Complaints were investigated appropriately, and complainants were provided with a full response including an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The service ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed in a timely manner. Access options were flexible and tailored to individuals’ preferences, including online, in-person, and telephone appointments. Extended consultations were available for people with a learning disability, and the practice also offered appointments once per month on Saturdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

People who used the service provided positive feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their experience of contacting the practice was 84% (compared to 67% nationally) and 80% of respondents (compared to 66% nationally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. Patient satisfaction for finding it easy to get through to the practice by phone was 84% (compared to 50% nationally). Patients reported they were familiar with and used the on-line service to book appointments with 70% of respondents finding it easy to contact the practice using the NHS APP (compared to 45% nationally) and 72%finding it easy to contact the GP practice by website (compared to 48% nationally).

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the Accessible Information Standards (AIS), and the patient record system was used to alert staff to any communication needs of the patient so that staff could then communicate effectively with the patient. The premises were purpose built, treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and fully accessible.

The provider 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. Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the local patient population, and the difficulties people may encounter. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. The provider was an Armed Forces Friendly GP Accredited practice.

Home visits were carried out for housebound and vulnerable patients. The provider also offered support to patients at a large number of care homes across the locality. There were dedicated GPs and clinicians who were responsible for carrying out ward rounds for each of these care homes. The nurses also conducted long-term condition reviews and administered flu vaccinations for care home patients.

The provider worked alongside their Primary Care Network (PCN) to review the needs of the local population.

The provider monitored data about the care and treatment provided to patients. Available data showed that people experienced similar to or better outcomes for care and treatment when compared to services locally and nationally. The results of the National GP patient survey showed that 99% of respondents (compared to 90% nationally) felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment and 88% described their overall experience of the practice as good (compared to 74% nationally). Feedback submitted to CQC by individuals using the service was predominantly positive. Respondents reported that appointment requests were managed promptly and efficiently and generally ran to schedule.

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. Feedback from care homes reported that the practice was responsive to the needs of their resident’s care needs and health conditions.

The provider conducted palliative care meetings with input from specialist teams to ensure patients’ needs were regularly reviewed and addressed. Continuity of care was prioritised, with efforts made to ensure that palliative patients were seen by the same GP wherever possible, supporting consistent and personalised care.