Quarry Bank 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

The responsive key question remains rated Good. One quality statement, Equity in Access, was the only quality statement assessed in this assessment. The provider used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care and treatment. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access.

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.

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 carried out in 2023, showed that people’s experience of accessing services were below the expected target. People’s satisfaction with their GP provider’s appointment times and satisfaction with the appointment times offered were below the target to be met. People’s satisfaction with getting through to the provider by phone and with the overall experience of making an appointment were below average. The provider carried out their own in-house survey of people’s experience and while this showed a level of satisfaction, the data still showed that a level of improvement was still required to meet expected targets over a sustained period. We recognise the pressure that providers are currently working under, and the efforts staff are making to maintain levels of access for people. At the same time, our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. Although we saw the provider was attempting to improve access, this was not yet reflected in the GP patient survey data or other sources of people’s feedback and will be identified in the 2024 data results.

The provider demonstrated they understood the needs of its local population by the services they had developed to meet people’s care and treatment needs. As a result of feedback from the Patient Participation Group (PPG), friends and families and their own in-house survey data they had made significant improvements to how people could access services. For example: they had installed a new telephone system with multiples lines into the practice amongst call waiting and many other features. They also had a new triage system which along with the new phone system had improved access and increased capacity. They had also employed two extra salaried GP’s. These actions we found had made the necessary improvements to how people accessed services. The provider had an action plan in place which identified the actions they were taking and the systems to which they would monitor the impact from their changes. Further measures were also being considered to make further improvements were needed. Staff had the necessary support and training in place to be able to support people to access services.

People had a range of ways to access services, over the telephone, face to face, online and could even get a home visit where people were unable to visit the practice. The provider told us as part of their registration process, they screen all new potential patients to ensure they had in place the necessary systems to make use of all the ways to access services. The provider had a triage system in place, which all staff had been trained in so people could be directed quickly and efficiently to the most appropriate health professional to support them. The Primary Care Network (PCN) had made available extra resources available to ensure the triage process worked to the benefit of people using services.

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.