Shakespeare Road PMS

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

At our previous assessment we rated the practice as good for the responsive domain. At this assessment the practice has been rated as good. People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.

People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. Patients told us they could access the service and praised staff members for their professionalism and help.

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. We found that the practice had analysed the needs of their practice population. As a result of this they had multiple members of staff that were fluent in different languages to assist patients. They ran a clinic every two weeks that was attended by a Slovak interpreter. Due to the nature of their transient patient population group they had strong links with community services that they could signpost patients to.

This service scored 79 (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.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 97% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was above the local and national averages of 91%. We received positive feedback from patients, they told us they felt listened to and that staff were kind, helpful and professional.

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.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We received positive feedback from patients who told us they were able to access appointments when they required them. Patients told us that when requested, they were often able to see the clinician of their choice. This National GP Patient Survey showed that 40% of patients said they usually get to see the GP or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to. This was in line with local and national results.

We looked at the practice’s appointment system and could see that patients were able to book appointments that suited their individual needs. This included face to face, telephone and online appointments. We saw that there were still appointments available that day for patients.

Staff were able to signpost patients to the most appropriate pathways when required. This included the pharmacy first scheme and social prescribers. Patients could also be given appointments through an overflow service operated by the Primary Care Network (PCN).

The practice was able to offer extended appointments for people with a learning disability or patients with comorbidities. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

We found that the practice kept a “cancellation list” this was made up of patients who had requested an appointment on the day but were not able to get one. If another patient cancelled their appointment the next patient on the “cancellation list” would be offered that appointment.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 59% of patients said they were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment. This was above local results of 55% and national results of 53%.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

We found that the practice ran a clinic every two weeks that was attended by a Slovakian interpreter. These clinics were popular with patients and were always booked up in advance.

Multiple members of the reception and administration team were able to speak multiple languages. We saw examples of patients asking to speak with specific members of staff when they required assistance. Staff were able to speak Slovak, Russian, Polish, Urdu and Punjabi as well as having an understanding of other languages.

Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities showed that deprivation within the practice population group was in the 1st decile (1 of 10). As the practice was in a deprived area we found they had developed strong links with community services. They produced a “Community Resources” book that was used to signpost patients to local services. These services were made up of bereavement and, carers support, cost of living, mental health, debt and money, dementia, domestic abuse, eating disorder, gambling, housing, health and fitness, drug and alcohol and free food services.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Patients told us “Doctors make time to listen and explain what they are doing” and “staff are friendly and understanding.”

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.

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.