Walsall Wood 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 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 has changed to good. The provider had taken action to ensure there were adequate systems in place to ensure there were enough suitably qualified and competent staff deployed at all times to provide safe care and treatment.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care, as reflected in the practice results in the most recent National GP Survey and discussions we held with a representative of the Patient Participation Group (PPG).

Staff spoken with understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff told us people registered at the practice were mainly white Caucasian patients and patients saw the same clinician where possible to provide continuity of care.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Patients had access to a range of information available on the practice website and on notice boards within the practice waiting area. Posters and various health leaflets were displayed, in addition to photos of staff working at the practice and their roles. However, the practice did not always ensure up-to-date information was available. For example, signage to the practice was not clearly displayed neither was the practice opening times or what to do when the practice was closed, including on a Wednesday from 1pm. The practice told us they had since rectified this. The CQC rating was displayed in the waiting room, however this was not accurate as it referred to the report from the 2022 inspection and not the 2023 inspection.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available. A poster was displayed at reception telling patients if they had a disability impairment, or sensory loss or needed help to receive information in a way they could easily understand for example, large print, braille, email, alternative languages or British Sign Language to inform reception. The practice had access to interpreter services. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records on the practice website, however this required updating to reflect the change in practice manager.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Information about how to make a complaint was available on the practice website and displayed in the practice. Staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of the practice complaints process and told us any concerns were shared during practice meetings. The practice involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

No formal written complaints had been received by the practice in the previous 12 months. However,13 verbal complaints had been logged, and these had been discussed at practice meetings. The practice manager shared an example of the action they had taken in relation to one of these verbal complaints received. They told us the complainant had been invited into the practice, a meeting had been held to address the concerns however, this had not been recorded.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice had considered the key aspects of their patient population in relation to reasonable adjustments. They told us the practice was mainly Caucasian, and they had assessed the need to provide leaflets in other languages, but this was not currently required. However, the practice website included a ‘You and your general practice’ guide about what to expect from the practice, which included a range of information including when and how to contact the practice, appointments, if extra help is needed and if people are new to the UK. The guide could be viewed in different languages.

People could access the service online, in person and by telephone. On the day of our site visit the practice appointment system and our observations showed people had timely access to appointments. Same day urgent appointments were available and pre-bookable routine appointments were available with a GP and nurse within 1 week and a health care assistant within 3 days. The practice had taken part in the GP Improvement Programme commissioned by NHS England to support the practice to implement modern general practice access.

The CQC had received 2 concerns in the previous 12 months, in addition to feedback from 2 people in preparation for the inspection. These included concerns regarding access and not meeting the capacity of the local area in addition to only having 1 GP available. However, the most recent National Patient GP Survey showed 87% of practice respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice by phone, which was significantly higher than the national average of 53%. A representative from the patient participation group (PPG) considered access to appointments had improved since the last inspection, both face to face and telephone consultation.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service was mainly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp provided access to the front entrance. However, the main door and door to the reception area were not automatic to enable easier access for people with a disability or parent/care giver with a pram. There was an intercom system at the entrance to alert reception staff if people required assistance with getting into the building, however there was no signage to alert patients requiring support of this. Leaders told us they would take action to address this. We observed a patient in a wheelchair, supported by a family member, having difficultly safely manoeuvring the narrow doors and corridor. Leaders and staff were aware of the constraints of working in a non-purpose-built premises where the team were unable to offer as many services as they would like to.

People were 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.

Staff told us patients were supported to take part in decisions about their care. Records we reviewed on the practice clinical system showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and this information was shared with other services, such as the out of hours team, when necessary. Internal monthly meetings were held to discuss end of life patients. Leaders told us other agencies were invited to attend, such as district nurses, palliative care nurses and the local hospice, but did not attend.