Park Lane 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.

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 people were mostly 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 a strong appreciation of empathy, follow-ups, and clear communication. They felt the GPs took the time to listen to and they were not rushed during appointments. In addition, people commented that the GPs explained test results clearly and diagnosed serious conditions proactively. People also shared examples of individualised personal care they had received.

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). The PCN provided a range of appointments in addition to the ‘on day’ service including home visiting service and some extended hours appointments at weekends. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Information for people using the service was available on display boards within the waiting room. Health promotion leaflets were available. For example, lifestyle advice, screening programmes and NHS health checks.

The patient participation group had organised a series of talks related to health topics and living well. These included a perimenopause and menopause talk; talking about end-of-life care; skin cancer and sun safety; aging positively and living well; living well with healthy feet and living well with pain.

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 and in the complaints leaflet. 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 people who used the service and staff every month and were on display in the waiting room.

Changes made as a result of feedback included increasing appointment times to 15 minutes, so clinics ran on time, implementing a call back option on the telephone system, a sign on the reception desk with the name of the receptionist, and a paper form for people to complete when attending with a potential urine infection to maintain privacy and dignity.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone, and a range of different appointment types were available. The service offered on the day, within the next few days and prebookable appointments. A small number of appointments each day were allocated for specific conditions such as urinary tract infections, so people could be seen in a timely manner. The service provided extended hours appointments two evenings a week. The service could book on the day in hours appointments for people at the enhanced access service operated by the local primacy care network.

National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the service and accessing appointments. Indicators showed 87% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, significantly above the national average of 67%. In addition, 80% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, significantly above the national average of 50%.

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 available and breast feeding welcomed within the service.

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 Care Quality Commission, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not 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. People who required additional care and support were discussed during the regular multi-disciplinary team meetings. Any unexpected deaths were discussed during the weekly clinical meetings.

When available in the electric record, 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.