Northgate 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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive 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 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

In the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey, 96% of respondents said they felt their needs were met during their last appointment, which was above with the local average of 88%, and above the national average of 90%. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. For example, patient feedback identified concerns about communication during appointment delays. The practice responded by improving how staff updated patients, which led to a better patient experience. The practice listened to patient feedback and took on board any actions. The patient participation group (PPG) were positive about the practice and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient care.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice was a member of the Primary Care Network. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. 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.

The practice had allocated accessible parking spaces. The building included a lift for patients to access other community health services on the first floor of the building.

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.

Staff had completed training on the accessible information standard to help identify and meet patients’ communication needs and reduce barriers in accessing care.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice was open from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday with extended hours open from 7.30am. Online requests were available between 7.00am - 7.00pm. Patients had access to out-of-hours services. Extended access hubs were available from Monday to Friday evenings and all day every Saturday. The practice’s website also provided information on accessibility for the out of hours sites including disabled access and reasonable adjustments.

People could access the service to suit their needs. For example, online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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.

GP Patient Survey results regarding contact with the practice were positive. Feedback on the helpfulness of reception staff was 87% which was above the local average of 79% and above the national average of 83%. Ease of telephone access scored 78% which was higher than the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%. Digital contact methods such as through the practice website was 79% which was above the local average of 46% and the national average of 51%. In addition, results for contacting the practice using the NHS App were 72% higher than the local average of 46% and the national average of 49%. The practice supported patients to access online services effectively.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities.

Staff recognised the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or 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.

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.