Tessa Jowell GP 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, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

Patient satisfaction regarding access was lower than national averages. We saw action had been taken by the practice to improve access; however the impact of this action had not yet been measured.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

National GP Patient Survey data collected between January and March 2024 showed lower than average patient satisfaction with contacting the practice (47.1% responded positively, compared with the national average of 67.3%) and specifically with contacting the practice on the telephone (27.4% responded positively, compared with the national average of 49.7%).

We received 29 Give Feedback on Care responses from patients at the practice. Nine responses were positive about the service, 19 were negative and 1 gave mixed feedback. Positive feedback referred to good experiences with clinical and non-clinical staff and improvements to the appointment process. Negative feedback referred to difficult accessing appointments and referrals.

The provider was aware of patients’ concerns regarding access. The GP surgery was located in a health centre which provided a number of other services, such as blood tests, a diabetes clinic and mental health services. The provider told us the GP Surgery regularly received telephone calls for one of the other services in the building. Directing patients to the correct service increased the workload for practice reception staff and resulted in a longer wait time for patients on the telephone. In response to these concerns, the practice had developed an action plan. This included the implementation of a new telephone system and an increase in the number of administration staff employed at the practice. The provider collected and analysed data relating to the time taken to answer telephones and abandoned call rates to inform staffing requirements. Patients were encouraged to use an online system to request appointments and prescriptions, freeing up telephone lines for patients who were unable to use the online system. Previously, the online system was only open for 1 hour per day; this had been extended to be open from 8.00am to 5.00pm. Reception staff submitted online requests for patients who were unable to use the online system, and there were flags on patient records to indicate where this support was required.

Patients were offered telephone and in person appointments depending on preference and need. In 2024, the provider adopted a new model for digital triage. This involved clinicians triaging requests for appointments, prioritising urgent requests, and providing routine appointments within 10 working days.

Some patients had raised concerns about the lack of automatic doors in the building which made it difficult for people using mobility scooters or wheelchairs to access all areas of the building. The provider had raised these concerns with the building management company, and worked with patients to ensure, where safe to do so, doors were left open to ensure patients could access areas of the practice they needed to.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.