East Barnet Health 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 of access, under the key question Responsive and found the national GP survey was below national average and the provider had taken action to respond to patient feedback. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The practice had policies and procedures in regard to patient access however some did not have the date they were reviewed. Following the inspection the practice manager explained that all policies and procedures would now be reviewed annually.

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 leaders understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs. The leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve patient access. The leaders explained they had responded to patient feedback and had employed a reception manager, new administration staff and four GPs. In addition, they had improved patient information to assist patients to book their appointments online and had changed the appointment system to provide all patients with a choice of a face-to-face appointment. The leaders had undertaken regular audits to determine demand and capacity regarding their appointment system and continued to monitor the availability of appointments and staff daily. The reception team booked and prioritised appointments, using specific guidance. This included the community pharmacy consultation service guide, practice nurse roles, and what would be prioritised as a on the day or urgent appointments. They were supported by a duty doctor. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. The range of options included by telephone, by visiting the practice, by using the online consultation service and the on-line appointment system. The practice also made use of a text message service to send and receive information from patients. The practice provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, staff described how staff were alerted to patient needs such as communication, vulnerability, and palliative care. 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, within a one-mile radius of the practice.

We reviewed the practice's results in the 2022 and 2023 national GP patient survey taken from 1 January to 31 March. This found when looking at patients’ response to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone, those who were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment times, and those who responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment the results were in below the national average since 2022. The provider submitted their friends and family feedback from 1 April to the present time which demonstrated that 161 out of 192 patients would recommend the practice. In addition, the practice had commenced their own survey about patients experience when accessing the practice. We found the practice took account of patient feedback and made changes accordingly. Patients had access to an interpretation service for patients whom English language was not their first language and for patients whose hearing was impaired. The practice was accessible to patients with mobility need.

The practice was open from 8am to 6:30pm from Monday to Friday except for Tuesday when the practice was open from 7am. GP appointments were available from 8.30am to 1pm and 2pm to 6.30pm. The also practice offered appointments from a health care assistant and practice nurses. Patients also had access to extended GP hours service operated by the GP Federation from Monday to Friday 6.30pm to 9pm, Saturday and Sunday 8am to 4pm. Additionally there were enhanced access appointments delivered by their local primary care network every weekday evening and on Saturdays for long term health condition reviews, immunisations, social prescribing, spirometry, severe mental health checks and phlebotomy. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients and staff had guidance to follow. The practice had policies and procedures in regard to patient access however some did not have the date they were reviewed.

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.