Fulwood Green 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We assessed all quality statements from this key question. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. The rating remains good following this assessment.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Records and discussions with staff demonstrated people’s care plans were up to date relating to their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People who used services including carers and dependents, were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, for example, patients on the end-of-life pathway. Records showed people had been informed about their condition, care and treatment options, including any associated risks and any advice provided. People who used the service were given the opportunity to provide feedback to CQC via a link sent to patients as a text message. Comments made to CQC during the inspection were extremely positive about how staff had met their needs in terms of access, referrals and clinical care. The service received very high patient satisfaction scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 98% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 93% (compared to 87% nationally) said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The clinical staff team were long standing, and this provided a high level of consistency for people who used the service. Staff told us where necessary, people benefitted from seeing the same healthcare professional. Results of the National GP Patient Survey indicated that usually patients got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they preferred. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people received information that was tailored to their individual needs, which included, making reasonable adjustments for disabled people and providing interpretation and translation services for people who did not speak English or who used British Sign Language. Staff supported people who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services with accessible information, and provide safety netting advice when patients were at risk of deteriorating. The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice kept a log of formal and informal feedback from all sources and used it to make improvements. The service had a well-publicised complaints process. This included information about the policy on the practice website, a leaflet and poster showing patients how to complain and a full working policy and process for staff to follow. Our review of a sample of individual complaints showed the service had reviewed all complaints and discussed these at staff meetings. However, the formal records kept for some complaints required improvement. The service monitored patient views via the NHS Friends and Family Test and NHS online feedback. During the assessment we spoke with a member of the practice Patient Participation Group (PPG) and the feedback we received was extremely positive. The PPG met quarterly and were attended by the management team.

People could access services when they needed to, for example patients requiring home visits. Physical premises and equipment were accessible, and people were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. The provider monitored patient access and made changes in response. Staff and leaders used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively improve access. The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their experience of contacting the practice was 65% (compared to 48% nationally) and 75% of respondents (compared to 66% nationally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. The percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 76% (compared to 67% nationally). A high percentage of patients were familiar with and used the on-line service to book appointments with 65% of respondents finding it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App (compared to 45% nationally). The provider had been proactive in supporting people to use this.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People who used the service had equal opportunities to access reviews of their care, treatment and medicines. People were invited for health screening. The provider had processes to ensure all people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. If needed, longer appointments were available for patients with complex or vulnerable needs. Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours. People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. Digital flags were used within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. The provider had registers in place for patients with a learning disability and annual checks were carried out to identify and address health issues early. The results of the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 93% of respondents (compared to 90% nationally) felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment and 87% described their overall experience of the practice as good (compared to 74% nationally). People who used the service were given the opportunity to give feedback to CQC on their care and experiences via a link sent to patients as a text message. Feedback shared directly with CQC showed that 24 of the 218 (11) % of patients were less satisfied with their experiences for such matters as access, clinical care, complaints management, culture and medication concerns.

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and they were supported to plan for these. 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 and staff attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss support for people receiving end of life care.