Olive Medical Practice

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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice usually 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. The practice told us people who used services were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, for example, patients on the end-of-life pathway.

The practice received below average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 61% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally and 86% locally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 77% (compared to 87% nationally and 88% locally) said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

The practice did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The practice had a significant events policy. This gave examples of what should be recorded as significant events, including new cancer diagnoses, and events that had resulted in a complaint. None of these examples had been recorded as significant events. The policy did not state who was responsible for any aspect of significant event reporting. There was no system to monitor significant events to say how many there had been, at what stage any investigation was at or if any themes had been identified. The practice worked closely with a practice in a neighbouring area. Significant events for both practices were kept and dealt with together so there was no insight into what issues were specific to this practice.

We reviewed 4 significant events forms. These did not contain enough information to determine exactly what had happened, what action had been taken or was required, or if learning had been shared and embedded. For example, an incident about a needlestick injury did not make it clear who had been injured, or what the advice from Occupational Health had been, and an incident about a cold chain breach did not indicate what the result of the investigation was. One significant event had not identified a possible data breach as a result of an error. In addition, we were told about a serious incident in the practice a month prior to our assessment. Although this had been discussed in a meeting of the GP partners, no significant event form had been completed and there was no monitoring of actions that were required to stop the incident being repeated.

Significant events were discussed at the partners’ meetings, but minutes did not clearly indicate outcomes. Some staff, including clinicians, told us they were not invited to meetings where significant events were discussed. The practice manager told us they were informed about them if they were directly involved. We reviewed minutes of administrative and reception meetings from November 2024. No significant events had been discussed.

Processes were 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. People who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use, and this information could be shown in different languages. However, some of this information was out of date. This had been pointed out to the practice following a visit from another organisation in June 2024, but it had not been amended.

The practice did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The practice had a significant events policy. This gave examples of what should be recorded as significant events, including new cancer diagnoses, and events that had resulted in a complaint. None of these examples had been recorded as significant events. The policy did not state who was responsible for any aspect of significant event reporting. There was no system to monitor significant events to say how many there had been, at what stage any investigation was at or if any themes had been identified. The practice worked closely with a practice in a neighbouring area. Significant events for both practices were kept and dealt with together so there was no insight into what issues were specific to this practice.

We reviewed 4 significant events forms. These did not contain enough information to determine exactly what had happened, what action had been taken or was required, or if learning had been shared and embedded. For example, an incident about a needlestick injury did not make it clear who had been injured, or what the advice from Occupational Health had been, and an incident about a cold chain breach did not indicate what the result of the investigation was. One significant event had not identified a possible data breach as a result of an error. In addition, we were told about a serious incident in the practice a month prior to our assessment. Although this had been discussed in a meeting of the GP partners, no significant event form had been completed and there was no monitoring of actions that were required to stop the incident being repeated.

Significant events were discussed at the partners’ meetings, but minutes did not clearly indicate outcomes. Some staff, including clinicians, told us they were not invited to meetings where significant events were discussed. The practice manager told us they were informed about them if they were directly involved. We reviewed minutes of administrative and reception meetings from November 2024. No significant events had been discussed.

People could usually access services when they needed to, for example digital, language, home visits and disability. Physical premises and equipment were accessible, and people were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Clinicians were available to see people for all types of appointment requests including urgent appointments. There was a daily on-call GP to triage urgent requests for appointments when reception had allocated the pre-bookable ones.

The service received below average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to access. The percentage of respondents were positive about their experience of contacting the practice was 41% (compared to 70% nationally and 73% locally) and 53% of respondents (compared to 68% nationally and 67% locally) 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 23% (compared to 57% nationally and 53% locally). 30% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App (compared to 49% nationally and 53% locally). The practice manager told us they did not have an action plan in place to improve access. They said their Friends and Family feedback was in line with the National GP Patient Survey results.

The practice did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The practice had a significant events policy. This gave examples of what should be recorded as significant events, including new cancer diagnoses, and events that had resulted in a complaint. None of these examples had been recorded as significant events. The policy did not state who was responsible for any aspect of significant event reporting. There was no system to monitor significant events to say how many there had been, at what stage any investigation was at or if any themes had been identified. The practice worked closely with a practice in a neighbouring area. Significant events for both practices were kept and dealt with together so there was no insight into what issues were specific to this practice.

We reviewed 4 significant events forms. These did not contain enough information to determine exactly what had happened, what action had been taken or was required, or if learning had been shared and embedded. For example, an incident about a needlestick injury did not make it clear who had been injured, or what the advice from Occupational Health had been, and an incident about a cold chain breach did not indicate what the result of the investigation was. One significant event had not identified a possible data breach as a result of an error. In addition, we were told about a serious incident in the practice a month prior to our assessment. Although this had been discussed in a meeting of the GP partners, no significant event form had been completed and there was no monitoring of actions that were required to stop the incident being repeated.

Significant events were discussed at the partners’ meetings, but minutes did not clearly indicate outcomes. Some staff, including clinicians, told us they were not invited to meetings where significant events were discussed. The practice manager told us they were informed about them if they were directly involved. We reviewed minutes of administrative and reception meetings from November 2024. No significant events had been discussed.

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. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were not monitored. There were regular multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss supporting people receiving end of life care. GPs provided their mobile telephone numbers so people could contact them directly in the event of a patient receiving end of life care dying. This facilitated a burial in line with their religious beliefs.