The Light

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 carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive and found: The practice had organised services to meet patients’ needs. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek and improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people including those most vulnerable and likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and developed opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. The practice monitored, reviewed and analysed data and feedback related to patient’s experiences when accessing care at the service. Where negative feedback was received or opportunities to improve were identified, the practice responded with plans implemented and changes designed to improve access, patients’ experiences, and satisfaction levels. Systems implemented were evaluated for effectiveness.

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.

Leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve. The practice implemented action plans in response to patient surveys and to patient feedback relating to access. We were told how these changes were assessed to make sure patients were not disadvantaged and how the impact of the changes was being monitored. Leaders explained they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities including adjustments to the registration process, and to how patients could contact and communicate with the practice. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people, asylum seekers and refugees and Travellers. We heard about changes they had made including changes to staffing, types of appointments, online consultation model and extended access services at weekends and evenings. The practice promoted the use of their website, digital and online consultation service to improve access and had available online booking of appointments as well as offering online consultations. However traditional methods of access were available to those who were not digitally proficient. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care, such as implementation of the local Primary Care Network (PCN) capacity and access improvement plan. It was clear that improving access and patient experience was a priority. They reviewed data, feedback and changes were made to ensure improvements would have a positive impact for their patients.

In the 2023 National GP Patient Survey data demonstrated responses to patient satisfaction with GP practice appointment times and satisfaction with the appointment offered were around the national and local averages and were similar in performance to previous year’s results. Responses to the question how easy it is to get through to the practice by phone were significantly worse than national average. Satisfaction with the overall experience of making an appointment was worse than the national average. They told us how they reviewed results and implemented action plans for improvement, for example EHub model and online consultation systems. The introduction of online and digital options for contact and appointments reduced phone pressures and improved patient access experience. We received feedback from nine patients which were all positive about care, treatment and access. They told us how improvements had been made in respect of access over the last 12 months and how online systems had made a positive impact on access. Patient feedback, data and audits demonstrated high satisfaction and improved access with the EHub initiative and online systems. Adaptations were made for those whose first language was not English and for patients who had information and communication needs related to a disability, impairment or sensory loss. The practice was accessible to patients with reduced mobility, baby and mothers and those who were hard of hearing. We found leaders gathered patient feedback by a variety of methods, responded to it and were continuously making improvements.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, through an App., Accurx (a patient/healthcare professionals communication platform) and in person. Information regarding access was displayed in the practice, on social media and online. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, online or as a home visit. Same day and pre bookable appointments were available. Weekday evenings and weekend appointments were available through an extended access arrangement with another GP practice in the network. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained and supported by documented protocols to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services. The practice offered appointments from a variety of clinical staff for example doctors, advanced nurse practitioners, practice nurse, healthcare assistants and a social prescriber. They also offer appointments with advanced role clinicians through the PCN such as mental health practitioners, physiotherapists, dieticians and pharmacists. Information on how to access care out of normal GP hours was available. We saw evidence that the number of available clinician appointments offered each week was adjusted, suitable for the population need and met requirements of the GP contract. The practice demonstrated how feedback from patients was continually monitored. We were shown and told about feedback that was gathered, reviewed and acted upon. We saw resulting action plans in place. Initiatives had been implemented and monitored to improve access, such as improved online and digital systems and staff training.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.