Thorpewood Medical Group Also known as Woodside 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. We assessed a total of 7 quality statements from this key question. At our last inspection we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating is good.

Leaders understood the health and care needs of people and communities and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. Care, support and treatment were easily accessible, including physical access. People could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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.

The provider ensured that people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Patient records reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Leaders were proactive in supporting patients to be involved in planning for their care needs.

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. For example, local care home staff spoke positively about continuity in people’s care and treatment because the provider’s services were flexible. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers. For example, the district nursing team told us that regular meetings took place with themselves, the provider and other health care professionals. People spoke positively about how care was delivered in a way that was co-ordinated, responsive and considerate of their needs.

The service 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. They spoke positively about how they could access information that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they could understand.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Records confirmed that learning from complaints was discussed and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, blood test information leaflets had recently been reviewed and updated in consultation with the practice’s patient participation group.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Leaders were aware that National GP Patient satisfaction scores had for several years been below local and national averages regarding phone access.

In May 2024, leaders (having consulted the practice’s Patient Participation Group) introduced a new phone system with patient call back functionality. We noted that two in house patient surveys undertaken before and after the introduction of the phone system (April 2024 and October 2024 - 961 respondents) highlighted increased patient satisfaction on appointment access.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The provider also offered extended access early morning appointments to accommodate working people. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the building also offered step free access.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. People spoke positively about how the service promoted equality and removed barriers. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Leaders understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, we noted the recent introduction of a dedicated Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT)/menopause clinic. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. People with learning disabilities or for whom English was not their first language were offered extended appointments.

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. They gave numerous examples of where reasonable adjustments had been made (for example home visits, wheelchair availability in reception, patients accompanied by British Sign Language interpreters being allocated longer appointments and a quiet waiting area for patients who may have sensory sensitivities).

People were not always 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 highlighted instances where people were not always supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation.