Park Medical Centre

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. The rating remains good following this assessment.

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 felt listened to. People who were not digitally enabled or had learning disabilities were able to request support using the phone and we observed patient records alerting staff that extra support may be required. Staff were trained to direct people to the most appropriate clinician or service to meet their needs. Clinicians were available to see people on-the-day for urgent appointment requests. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and outcomes and people who used the service were supported to live healthier lives and supported to make decisions about their future care.

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 was good at ensuring 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. Feedback from people who used the service was that they were well supported to understand their condition and involved in decisions about their care and treatment and in planning for their future needs.

The Nation GP patient survey reported that 86% of people who responded felt they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help them manage their long-term conditions. This exceeded the local and national averages of 71% and 69%, respectively. Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to their work. The culture and ethos of the service was to ensure a high level of patient satisfaction, and this was clear across all areas of our assessment. People who used the service shared examples of how staff had taken the time to make sure their needs were met holistically, and people were highly complementary about staff in all roles.

Feedback from the Friends and Family Test was also positive about care and treatment.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The clinical staff team were longstanding, and this provided a high level of consistency for people who used the service. When locum staff were used, they were usually known to the practice. Staff told us where necessary; people benefitted from seeing the same healthcare professional.

Staff collaborated with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example, working hard to promote the uptake of screening programmes and working closely with the Primary Care Network (PCN) to plan, develop and deliver services across the locality.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. Information was made available in easy read formats. People were provided with information about their health and treatment options to enable them to make an informed decision. The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services. Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

People could expect information to be tailored to their individual needs, which included, making reasonable adjustments for disabled people and providing interpretation and translation services for people who did not speak English or who used British Sign Language. People who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. The practice website contained an accessibility widget that supported people to access information in different formats including dyslexia friendly, large text and animation pause and included NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

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 concerns, complaints or issues. We saw feedback from the Friends and Family Test which was mostly positive and via complaints which we reviewed. People were encouraged to give feedback to the practice if they wished to complain about their care, treatment and support, and complaints were responded to appropriately with a full response and an apology. Complaint leaflets were available in reception and on the practice website. People had access to a ‘You said, we did’ feature on the website containing information about themes and trends from patients and the actions taken by the practice. Reception staff told us how they dealt with people’s concerns daily and reacted to concerns before they escalated. Complaints were documented appropriately, and trends and themes were reviewed for learning and to improve services. People responded positively to the GP patient survey that the healthcare professionals who saw them were good at listening to them and involving them in decisions about their care and treatment.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

The GP patient survey reported that 64% of people who responded felt their overall experience of contacting their GP practice was positive, which was below the local and national averages, however the practice recently implemented an online total triage system in response to patient feedback, and more time was required for the system to fully imbed. Of all the respondents 83% felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment, above the local and national average of 71% and 67%, respectively. Staff told us they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities.

There was information available for people to support them to understand how to access services (including on websites and telephone messages). Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours. People could access appointments in various ways including walk-in access at reception with visual and hearing support options available, using the telephone where staff were trained to appropriately respond to patients and digital access through the digital front door, which provides translation and alternative communication options for patients who preferred written or digital interactions. The provider regularly reviewed accessibility feedback to ensure no group was disadvantaged by the mode of access. There were systems and processes in place for prioritising people presenting with the highest need, and staff had access to guidance to support decision making regarding prioritisation.

The premises were fully accessible for people who were physically disabled. Treatment rooms were available on the ground and first floor, and an accessible lift was available for patients with mobility issues.

The practice considered reasonable adjustments for patients, adjustments, were coded and visible in the patient’s clinical record through the ‘reasonable adjustment digital flag,’ ensuring that all team members were aware of individual needs. Examples included extra time on phone calls or face-to-face appointments, offering double appointment slots where communication needs or learning disabilities required more time, providing a quiet space or alternative waiting arrangements for patients who may find busy areas distressing. Reasonable adjustments were regularly reviewed during care plan reviews or significant contact points.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff and leaders ensured they were able to recognise patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they tailored the service to meet their care, support and treatment needs in response to this.Learning disability and autism awareness was treated as a priority and 67% of all staff had completed specific training in this area.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Patients had equal opportunities to access appointments provided by a range of multi-skilled clinicians including GPs, advanced nurse practitioner, clinical pharmacist, pharmacist technician and practice nurses. Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement, and staff could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice.

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and were supported to plan for these. 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, as necessary. Multi-disciplinary meetings were held on a regular basis to discuss the needs of people receiving end of life care.