Caythorpe & Ancaster Medical 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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The practice encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their care. Ninety-seven percent of people in the National GP Patient Survey said they were involved in decisions about their care- this was above the national average of 91%. This was consistent with their in-house patient survey results.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of the population. The practice tailored its services to meet all aspects of its community’s needs. They had engaged with a traveller group around immunisations and despite low uptake, they reviewed this on an ongoing basis and have developed a dynamic relationship with this community. The neighbourhood team at the practice provided vulnerable people with continual support and link them with further care provision for specific needs.

The practice catered to individual needs to ensure information was available to all. The practice developed methods of communication that worked for each person. The practice supported those people who could not use online services to ensure equal opportunities. We received feedback where one person had struggled to access online services. They were offered personalised support by the practice to access the services they needed.

The practice was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas. We received vast amounts of feedback from people using the service and it was overall extremely positive. We received numerous comments stating the care they received was excellent and praised the friendly and approachable staff. In addition to the National GP Patient Survey, the practice ran its own in-house patient survey to further enhance feedback methods. The practice had a longstanding, active PPG who felt that they had a collaborative relationship with the practice and that their opinions were valued. People were able to raise complaints and the practice took concerns seriously. Both the practice and PPG engaged in attending regular community events to raise the profile of the practice and the services it offered. It also provided chance for opportunistic feedback.

The practice was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed. The appointment system the service implemented was open to people throughout the day and they consistently ensured both urgent and routine care was managed appropriately. Their excellent use of the system had been used as a case study as the ‘Caythorpe Model of Care’ to highlight to other services how they could develop their own demand and capacity model. This clearly showed that the practice had thoughtfully considered the needs of the people who used the service and had tailored it to produce excellent person-centred service. The National GP Patient Survey highlighted considerably above average results in relation to access. The practice encouraged use of accessing them through online services but remained flexible to people who may not be online. They frequently demonstrated they were adaptable to people’s needs and took requests over the phone if more suitable for people.

We received extensive examples of positive feedback from people using the service. The feedback reflected the positive results seen from the National GP Survey data. The practice have supported the development of specific features of their recall system, which ensures consistent engagement with people. People were given autonomy to book appointment to times, dates and site that suited them.

People were given good support to plan for their future. We saw an example of holistic care provided to a patient and their family through a new diagnosis. We saw that people were actively reviewed in relation to end of life care and their views and wishes were treated with respect and dignity. The practice’s neighbourhood team supported people in making decisions about their care. We saw a case where the team had taken proactive steps to engage a potentially vulnerable adult to gain appropriate support and achieved a good health outcome as a result.