James Street Group 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

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 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. In the GP Patient Survey carried out in 2024, 86% of people surveyed at this practice felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. The average for both England and Integrated Care Systems (ICS) stood at 92%.
We saw evidence that people were treated and supported in person-centred ways that considered their individual needs. The treatment and support provided reflected people’s various needs such as physical, mental, emotional, and social needs including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

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. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, they worked closely with local care homes arranging seasonal vaccines and carrying out regular ward rounds for this population group.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, when we assessed this practice, there were no complaints forms or patient registration forms available at the James Street premises. However, they managed to rectify this once we made them aware.

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.

The practice involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. In the GP Patient Survey results, 93% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their appointments. This was above the England average, which was 91% and the ICS, which stood at 92%.
We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints. There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) which the practice worked closely with.
 

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. In the National GP Patient Survey carried out in 2024, 11% of patients found it easy to contact this GP practice on the phone. This was significantly below the average for England and the ICS which was 50% and 52% respectively.
However, in response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had made some changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had introduced the total triage system which ensured that patients could access the most appropriate appointment for their needs. They had also upgraded their telephony system to include the call back option. The call back option ensured that patients could choose this option then wait for the practice to call them back instead without losing their place in the queue. When we assessed, the telephony system was still new and there was no available data for analysis. People could also access the service using online platforms, in person and by telephone. Where appropriate home visits could be arranged for housebound patients. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.
 

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 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. The Frail and Elderly Team at the practice provided support to ensure a smoother experience for the vulnerable cohorts.

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.

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.