Catherine House Surgery

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 in April 2022, we rated this key question as Good.

During our responsive follow up assessment in September 2022, we did not reassess the service for providing caring services.

At this assessment, the rating for this key question has remained rated as Good.

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. 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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of people who used the service.

The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of childhood immunisation and cervical screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers.

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 service made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

People 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.

Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of feedback from people who use the service. Records viewed showed there were clear records maintained of all complaints received, the actions taken, outcomes, learning and duty of candour in responses to complaints.

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

National GP Patient Survey data showed higher than average positive results for accessing the service. Feedback from members of the community about the provider were also positive. People could access the service to suit their needs. For example, online, in person and by telephone. All treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mainly positive. Feedback provided to CQC, in relation to access, was mixed. People told us they either had a good experience, or they had difficulty accessing appointments. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders and service staff 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 service, 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.

The service could accommodate people with sensory needs to wait in the quieter areas rather than the waiting room (if appropriate and safe). The service considered and always tried to accommodate requests for preferred times of day (if possible) to assist those who preferred the quieter times.

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.