Abingdon Family Health Care 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

We carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, ‘Equity in access’ under the Responsive key question and found: The provider monitored 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 provider responded with changes designed to improve access and patient experience. However, patient difficulties in getting through to the practice by phone had continued over time despite the provider trying to improve this and provide alternative means by which patients could contact the practice and obtain an appointment and hence reduce the need for telephone access. The effect of any efforts made were not yet reflected in patient feedback. A new phone system was scheduled to be provided and it was anticipated that this would enable the provider to better monitor the telephone access arrangements and would improve patient experience. Information was available to help patients understand the different means by which they could access the service. Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure the premises were accessible to patients with a range of needs. The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the ‘Accessible information standards’. The patient record system was used to alert staff to any particular communication needs of the patient so that staff could then communicate effectively with the patient and ensure they received information that could meet their individual needs. Information could be made available in alternative languages and formats including easy read materials. Translation services were available to patients who required these and longer appointments were booked for patients who required the services of an interpreter.

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.

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 monitored patient access, demand for appointments and the provision of appointments. They used this to plan resources, for example, by increasing the number of appointments provided at peak times during the week or by increasing the number of staff managing incoming calls in response to periods of high call volumes. The provider’s website provided advise for patients on how they could book an appointment. Patients could request an appointment through a range of options, for example through phoning the practice, visiting the practice, using the on-line appointment system or using the on-line consultation service. Information about how patients could access the service was available on the provider’s website. All appointment request were triaged by a GP and patients were provided with an appointment on the day of request or the following day. Patients could also book an appointment in advance if this was more appropriate to meet their needs. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, online or as a home visit. Same day and pre bookable appointments were available. Appointments were available on weekday evenings and weekends through the GP extended access service. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained in care navigation and could signpost patients to other appropriate services. The practice offered appointments from a variety of clinical staff for example GPs, physician associate, advanced clinical practitioner and practice nurses. Patients were also supported by a pharmacist, care co-ordinator and social prescriber as part of the primary care network. The provider had encouraged patients to use alternative means to contact the practice given the challenges of access through phoning the practice. The provider felt this had been successful but this was not yet evident through patient feedback.

The practice received lower than average patient satisfaction scores in the GP national patient survey 2023 for patient’s overall experience of making an appointment and for getting through to the practice by phone. Patient feedback on the NHS website for one review posted over past 12 months was negative with difficulties in getting through to the practice by phone being cited. The provider worked to provide equality of access to patients. We were told and saw that the practice sought and acted on feedback relating to access. However, any improvement for patients was not reflected in patient feedback about access to date. The results of the NHS Friends and Family test for December 2023 and January 2024 showed that 100% of patients reported that their experience of the practice as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. The practice maintained a register of patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable so that they could be easily identified, and services provided to meet their needs. For example, through prioritising appointments, providing health checks and regular reviews of care and treatment. The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues.

Leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and they had acted to improve patient experience of accessing the service. However, they told us that challenges with the functionality of the phone system had led to patient dissatisfaction with getting through to the practice by phone. The provider told us how they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, supporting people who have a learning disability to access the service. This included ensuring that reasonable adjustments had been made to the premises and ensuring that the standards for provide accessible information were met. 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 and Travellers. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders and the primary care network and local GP federation to improve access to primary care.

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.