Newburn Surgery Partnership Also known as Newburn 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 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. 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.

The service ensured that people were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions. Care planning was carried out in partnership with individuals, enabling them to make informed choices and agree on how to respond to any changes in their needs. Care plans were comprehensive and reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Leaders reported that staff referred patients to social prescribers where appropriate, supporting social, emotional, and practical needs. Patients were offered a choice between telephone and face-to-face appointments, enabling access to care in a way that suited their individual preferences. Patients with visual impairments or communication barriers were flagged on the clinical system, and staff adapted their approach to ensure these needs were met. Similarly, patients with learning disabilities had alerts recorded on the clinical system to guide staff in delivering personalised support, such as offering longer appointments or providing a quieter waiting area.

The service demonstrated a clear understanding of the diverse health and care needs of its patient population and local communities. Care delivery was joined-up, flexible, and promoted choice and continuity.
The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population and had tailored its approach to reflect the diversity of the community. For example, it actively built relationships with local community groups to encourage participation in screening programmes. Established mechanisms were in place for effective engagement with community healthcare providers.
Patients also had access to a range of additional services, including dietician support, counselling services for children, and social prescribing, ensuring holistic care and improved health outcomes.

The service provided accurate, up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs.
Interpreter services were available, including British Sign Language, ensuring effective communication for patients who required this support. Information could be adapted to meet accessibility requirements, such as large print or easy-read formats, and the practice website allowed text to be enlarged for better visibility. All information supplied by the service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.
The service also utilised multiple channels to share information, including text messages, social media, reception area posters, and leaflets, ensuring patients were kept informed through accessible and convenient means.

The service made it possible for people to share feedback, ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Patients were actively involved in decisions about their care and were informed of changes made as a result of their feedback. National GP Patient Survey results demonstrated strong performance in patient engagement, with 95% of respondents stating that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening during their last general practice appointment, compared to 89% across the ICS and 87% nationally.
Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy, and learning from complaints was evident. Staff were able to identify changes implemented as a result of patient feedback. For example, invitations for blood tests now included clear information on whether fasting is required or not, following feedback obtained from patients.
 

The service ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patients could access the service in ways that suited their needs, including online, in person, and by telephone. National GP Patient Survey data showed that 70% of respondents found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, which was higher than the local average of 57% and the national average of 53%. In the same survey, 58% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, this was also above the ICS result (54%) and national result (49%).
Leaders reported that easier telephone access was achieved by implementing a call-back feature that allowed patients to retain their position in the queue without waiting on the line for prolonged periods. Additional telephone staff were also deployed during known busy periods to help reduce call waiting times.
The service made reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of people with specific requirements. For example, patients with learning disabilities or autism who preferred quieter areas were supported by being offered a separate room to wait in. Treatment rooms were located on the ground floor and were wheelchair accessible. During the inspection, a hearing loop was not available; however, when this was highlighted, the service promptly arranged for one to be installed.
 

Staff and leaders demonstrated a clear commitment to reducing health inequalities. They actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in care or outcomes and tailored support and treatment to meet individual needs. Feedback from people using the service was mostly positive. Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 95% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. This was higher than both the local Integrated Care System (ICS) average of 91% and the national average of 90%.
Leaders proactively identified and addressed barriers to improving access and patient experience. For example, the provider had processes to ensure that everyone could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and Travellers. Homeless individuals were able to register without providing a permanent address and could use the practice address for correspondence related to their care. While the new patient registration process was primarily online, staff offered in-person support for those unable to complete the process digitally, ensuring accessibility for all.
The practice worked collaboratively with local organisations, including voluntary sector partners, to tackle local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of an inclusive approach and made reasonable adjustments to promote equity in care and outcomes.
 

People were supported to plan for significant life changes, including end-of-life care, ensuring they had sufficient time and information to make informed decisions about their future. There were 3 care homes that were aligned to this GP service. Staff carried out weekly ward rounds in these homes and collaborated with district nursing teams to provide timely and appropriate support for people receiving end-of-life care.
We saw evidence that people were supported to consider and record their wishes regarding end-of-life care, including decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation.