St Hilary Group 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 the service met people’s needs, and 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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Arrangements were in place to support a range of patient groups, including home visits, reasonable adjustments and dedicated support for care home residents through regular ward rounds. Daily clinical meetings supported the timely review of referrals, safeguarding concerns and treatment actions, helping to ensure patients received appropriate and timely follow-up care.

The premises were accessible and included level and ramp access, ground floor consultation rooms, facilities for people with sensory impairments, interpretation services, breastfeeding and baby changing facilities, and information to support carers. Patient feedback regarding access and responsiveness was generally positive. Patients reported being able to obtain same-day or timely appointments when needed and valued continuity of care where possible. The National GP Patient Survey results were in line with local and national averages with some areas higher. For example, 85% of participants to the survey described their overall experience of accessing the service as good, compared to a national average of 77%. Patients described staff as helpful, responsive and supportive, and highlighted prompt action on referrals, investigations and treatment plans.

Leaders demonstrated awareness of areas requiring improvement, particularly digital access, and used patient feedback to identify and address barriers to care. For example, the practice introduced the total triage model, managed by GPs and supported by administrative staff, which ensured patients were assessed in a timely way, according to clinical need and directed to the most appropriate service. In addition, to create a welcoming and personalised approach GPs met patients in the waiting area.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The practice demonstrated a proactive approach to reducing inequalities in access, experience and outcomes for patients who may be at greater risk of disadvantage. Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs and tailored care for autistic people and people with a learning disability as well as and people with other neurodiverse conditions, including offering longer appointments and participating in an ADHD support project. Systems were in place to identify and maintain registers of patients requiring additional support, helping to ensure they received appropriate health monitoring and interventions. Staff had completed training, supporting their ability to provide inclusive care and reduce barriers to treatment. The practice had achieved accreditation through veteran, neurodiversity and dementia-friendly schemes and provided access to private spaces and counselling support for patients who may require additional assistance. Staff and patient feedback demonstrated that care was tailored to individual circumstances, with continuity of care, personalised support and reasonable adjustments contributing to positive experiences and outcomes.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.