The Acocks Green 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 requires improvement due to concerns about patients access to the service. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 71 (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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Staff were able to explain the key principles of the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people 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 percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 61% which showed no statistical variation to the national average.

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, building relationships with the local community groups to promote the additional services such as flu injections. The provider told us they had a transient practice population and that they had devised a system to ensure people knew their rights about registering for a GP at their new location. They did this through discussions and telephone calls.

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 not visibly available in a range of languages.

However, the provider explained that they would print these should people ask. They appreciated the risk that many people would not know to ask at reception and had planned to put more literature in the waiting room. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met 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. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to describe changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) were positive about the service and how they felt their voices were heard. The service had a friends and family feedback process which included both electronic feedback and feedback forms in the practice. They used this data to analyse where improvements could be made and how they could provide a better service to people. An example of this was when they had used feedback to improve the triage process by allowing people to come into the surgery to make appointments with help from reception staff.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

During our assessment, we looked at the practice’s appointment system and could see that people were able to book appointments that suited their individual needs. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. We saw that there was a duty doctor system that could offer emergency appointments on the same day. People were able to book appointments over the telephone, in person and online. They had reviewed capacity and demand to identify how many on-the-day appointments were needed in relation to pre-bookable appointments and built the rotas accordingly. Support was offered to people with learning disability such as telephone and text reminders before appointments should they need them.

However, we saw in the reception waiting area there were no chairs with armrests which are helpful to people with mobility issues so that they can safety sit and stand from a seated position. The provider had not completed any audits to assess accessibility and ensure reasonable adjustments were in place.

The National GP Patient Survey data further showed, only 34% of people responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice by telephone, which was below the national average of 52%. The provider explained that a high number of people in the surgery’s catchment area were unable to use technology such as online triaging and so called the surgery. They told us that they added additional resources to reception during peak morning hours to mitigate against this. They would use resource across the parent organisation to reduce waiting times on the telephone. The provider told us they had an action plan to address the findings from the National GP Survey to increase patient satisfaction. and would implement changes but at the time of the inspection we were not assured the areas for improvement had been fully addressed.

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 generally positive about care for people who may not speak English as a first language or people with disabilities.

However, there were some negative feedback around waiting times for appointments and a lack of information on display in other languages with people having to request this from staff. Staff spoke a variety of local community languages which helped in addressing people’s needs. People appreciated that other spoken languages were used for communication apart from English. People told us that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. For example, they valued the services understanding of the local community and cultural barriers some may face such as lack of English.

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 refugees. 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.