Haigh Hall Medical Centre Also known as Affinity Care

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. The service provided information that people could understand. People received fair and equal treatment and staff were trained to understand people’s needs. People who used the service were supported to live healthier lives. The practice understood the patient population and they identified where they could make changes to support patients. Patients were able to book routine and on the day appointments. The practice took complaints and other patient feedback seriously and learnt from them to improve the quality of care.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (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.

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. The practice was reestablishing a Patient Participation Group (PPG), the current group members felt the practice was open and honest and that their feedback was listened to and acted upon where possible. The practice could evidence examples of sharing information with their patients, for example the practice had multiple information notice boards throughout the waiting room, this included a notice board about Dementia and contained information that could help inform patients.

There was a system to record and investigate complaints. Staff were aware of where they should direct patients who wanted to make a complaint. The complaints policy was comprehensive and complaint responses to patients contained signposting to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman. The practice website also contained information on ways in which a patient could complain, which included being able to submit a complaint through a webform. Complaints were shared with the relevant team members and learning was evident.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service offered a range of appointments from 8am till 6pm Monday to Friday. Patients were able to book appointments through a multitude of different avenues including by phone, walking into the practice or through an online digital triage system. When contacting the practice, the reception team will care navigate the patients request and booked the most appropriate appointment, this could be for a face-to-face appointment or for a telephone consultation. Receptionists were also trained to direct patients to other services and help them navigate these. Patients could book appointments both on the day and in advance with doctors and could book nurse and health care assistant appointments in advance. Patients were able to book appointment at times and days that worked for them. National GP Patient Survey data indicators showed that 53% of patient found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone, the national average is 50%. The service had identified issues with their current process for booking appointments and their online digital triage system and looked at the effectiveness of this and the service this provided for their patients. They found their current digital triage system was not as effective as they would like. At the time of our assessment they were currently in the process of rolling out a new triage software system aimed to increase appointments and availability for patients.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Reasonable adjustments were made for patients who experienced difficulties accessing services. For example, translation services were available for those who required them, and a hearing loop was available at reception. Additionally, staff informed us that a private room was available for patients who needed a confidential conversation with reception staff.

Staff said that longer appointment could be made if they were needed, for example patients who may have a learning disability or if staff felt a longer appointment may better meet the needs of the patient.

The provider had multiple outreach avenues through the Community partnership newsletters. This included collaborations between various health care providers, community centres and non-profit organisations. The newsletter had information on bereavement groups, gentle exercise classes for pain management and a wellbeing telephone network.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

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.