The Paradise Road 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 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.Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Clinicians recorded discussions and consent to demonstrate this. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

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. For example, the practice referred patients to dementia cafés and community support groups. For patients with alcohol dependence, the practice signposted to community gardening programmes that provided therapeutic activity. The social prescriber maintained up‑to‑date knowledge of all these local resources and worked with the practice to coordinate referrals.

There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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. This included providing written resources such as easy‑read materials, as well as other reasonable adjustments for people with learning disabilities The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. A patient shared that they felt fully informed and confident following detailed discussions about their treatment and prescribed medicine.

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 manager was responsible for monitoring complaints. There were processes in place informing patients on how to complain. For example, details of how to make a complaint were displayed at the reception desk and on the practice website. We reviewed the current complaints log and saw that complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy.

We reviewed team and clinical staff meeting minutes and saw that complaints were discussed and learning was shared for staff to identify changes and improve the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. This included a hearing loop and interpreting services to support communication needs. The provider also ensured physical accessibility to the premises. There was step-free access to the building. Regular health and safety audits were carried out to identify risks, ensure compliance, and implement improvements promptly.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

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. All staff had completed learning disabilities and autism training to improve their ability to meet the needs of these patients. Additional support was provided where needed, including allocating extra time or double appointment slots. The practice also identified people who may experience barriers to care, such as those at risk of digital exclusion. To reduce these barriers, they offered multiple access routes, including telephone support, walk‑in assistance at the practice, and online forms for those able to use them. Reception staff and social prescriber frequently supported patients who struggled to communicate or needed reassurance.

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.

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. We reviewed the “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) plans that the practice had in place. They were completed in line with expectations. This included documenting the patients and family involvement where appropriate, consideration of mental capacity and liaison with other services. This information was shared with other services when necessary.