Greenbank 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 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.

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 majority of people had their initial consultation needs met on the day of request or through being booked into routine appointments. Clinicians were available to see people for all types of appointment requests including urgent appointments. The provider monitored patient access effectively and made changes in response to ensure patient satisfaction.

CQC received feedback from patients through ‘Give Feedback on Care’ which was mostly positive and Friends and Family Test Data shared by the practice showed that feedback regarding access was also mostly positive. However, The National GP Patient Survey reported that 65% of people who responded felt their overall experience of contacting their GP practice was good, which was below the national average of 70%. The provider had recently introduced improvements to support a more efficient access model including the use of digital/online services and these needed time to fully embed. Information was available for people to support them to understand how to access services, including on websites, telephone messages and newsletters.

Extended access appointments were available. There were arrangements to prioritise patients to ensure urgent needs were met on the same day. Home visits were made following an assessment of need. Patients were directed to 111 if they needed care and treatment when the practice was closed. Clinical staff were available for face-to-face appointments 5 days a week. Triage was undertaken by trained care co-ordinators and supported by a duty GP. Patients were supported to use the digital front door to access services and were signposted appropriately to the most suitable clinician. The provider regularly reviewed accessibility feedback to ensure no group was disadvantaged by the mode of access.

Premises were accessible for people who were physically disabled and treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. There was plenty of on road parking close to the practice and there was 1 disabled parking space.

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.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

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.