Hartshill Medical 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 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.

The service 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.

Staff we spoke with told us care plans reflected people’s needs. For example, the front page of people’s records showed their communication needs, so staff were immediately aware of this. Staff also told us that new patient forms gave people the option to disclose if they had any disabilities.

The practice had introduced daily appointments for people to come and have a discussion around what care a patient would want to receive in the event of a life-threatening emergency. There were polices in place to support people to receive person centred care. For example, a gender identity policy.

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 such as the palliative care team, district nurses, social workers and local mental health centre.

The practice staff referred patients to services such as a digital weight management service and a social prescriber was also available to provide support and advice on local services. The practice had also introduced admission avoidance assessment appointments which helped support people who could be at risk of deterioration or who required extra support.

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 (AIS). Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

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 generally managed in line with the practice’s policy. Feedback we gave to the practice about the complaints process was amended during our on-site visit. Staff told us complaints were discussed in team meetings and actions, and learning was shared with staff.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The National GP Patient Survey data identified that 74.1% of people responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice, compared to the national average of 67.3% and 61.1% of people responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, compared to the national average of 49.7%. To improve access to the service the practice offered extended appointments, should they be required. For example, for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The building was all on one level and one treatment room was larger than the others, should a person require more physical space.

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.

Our observations on site demonstrated, 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, 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.

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.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. The practice had also commenced a quality improvement project on proactive palliative care reviews which was ongoing.