Farrow 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

Overall, we found that the practice provided a responsive service. At the inspection in April 2023, we found that the provider did not have a functioning system in place to effectively manage complaints and to use complaints to improve the quality of care. In this assessment we found that there was an effective complaints process in place, which included learning and improvements being made. Most of the feedback we received from patients was positive about the service they had received from the practice. The less positive responses were largely related to access. Leaders had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of their patient population, and the challenges to patient access, and had taken action in response to this. There was no Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place, but we were told that plans were underway to create a primary care network wide PPG.

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.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff and leaders told us that they involved patients in their care and treatment. They told us they did this by having discussions, offering choice, and by providing patients with the support they needed to understand, for example by offering support with any communication needs.

Leaders had a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of their patient population. They told us that an analysis of local needs had been carried out at the primary care network level. We were told that one of the GPs at the practice regularly took part in community engagement meetings and events and fed back to the rest of the team to encourage new initiatives for their patients.

We spoke with the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board ahead of this assessment. From the feedback we received from them there was no indication of concern in this area.

Patients had a named GP to support continuity of care, although they could choose to see a GP of their choice where possible. Where referrals were made to external services, these were monitored and followed up appropriately. There was an integrated approach to patient care, and services worked well together. Some services, for example the physiotherapy service, were offered onsite to support provision of care.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. Patients reported being listened to and being given information to support them in their care and treatment.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard. They told us there were several bilingual staff within the practice and that this supported communication with patients. They also told us that patients could request information in more accessible ways, such as in large print or braille, and that individual communication needs were noted on the patient’s record. Staff told us they supported patients with using online services. Staff completed training on data protection to ensure that information collected and shared by staff meets data protection legislation requirements.

The practice website contained accessible information on, for example, opening times, patient registration, clinics and services, complaints, and prescription ordering. Reasonable adjustments were made at the practice to support communication, including the use of interpreters. Leaflets were available in the reception area and posters were displayed to provide patients with information on the practice and the different services available to them. Patients were also provided with information on how to access their medical record. At the time of the assessment some information on the website, for example practice staff members, was not up to date.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. Patients told us that staff at the practice listened to them and involved them in their care and treatment.

We were informed about the different ways that patients could share feedback and raise complaints. This included the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), and the complaints process. Staff we spoke to understood the complaints process and how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they may have. Staff told us how learning from complaints was used as an opportunity for improvement. For example, we heard that a number of complaints about reception staff led to customer service training being provided to these staff.

There was a complaints process in place, including a complaints lead, and a policy. Information was also available on the practice website. We reviewed a number of complaints and found they were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and learning shared with staff. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. There was also an annual review of complaints which looked at themes, learning points, changes made and other planned actions. The practice had been unable to resurrect their Patient Participation Group (PPG) in recent years, but plans were in place to create a primary care network wide PPG. The practice did not carry out its own patient surveys.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service they received via the Give Feedback on Care form on the Care Quality Commission website. We received 237 responses. Of these, 72% were positive about the service they had received from the practice. The less positive responses were largely related to access. The GP Patient Survey 2023 data regarding access showed that responses were in-line with national averages, although slightly lower than 2022 data. The GP Patient Survey for 2024 showed that the practice was performing better than local and national averages in areas such as how easy it is to get through to the practice by phone or website, and the healthcare professional being good at listening to the patient. The practice did not perform so well in areas such as getting to see or speak to the preferred healthcare professional.

A capacity and access improvement plan had been created with the practice’s Primary Care Network (PCN) in April 2023, with the aim of increasing capacity within the practice and enhancing access for patients. The practice told us that as a result of this they had reviewed their initial triage system and now offered patients an immediate choice of appointment. The practice had already installed a cloud-based telephony system and we were told that this would be upgraded in August 2024 to allow more functionality, for example a call-back system. Feedback from staff demonstrated that people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

The practice opening times are Monday to Friday from 8am to 6pm. Appointment types include telephone and face to face. Appointments can be booked on the day or up to 2 weeks in advance, by telephone, online, or at the practice. We were told that approximately 75% of appointments are booked on the day. Extended access is provided to patients at a nearby practice and this is available Monday to Friday from 6.30pm to 9.30pm and Saturdays from 9am to 2pm, for various services including GP appointments, phlebotomy, cervical screening and counselling. Out of Hours access is available to patients from 6pm to 8am via Local Care Direct. Staff received training in care navigation and could signpost patients to different services.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Leaders told us about the ways in which they supported national initiatives to engage with and educate patients, for example signposting or referring patients for weight management and smoking support.

Home visits were carried out for housebound and vulnerable patients. There was a weekly ward round for a nearby home for vulnerable patients and this was carried out virtually or face to face. Reasonable adjustments were made, including use of interpreters and longer appointments. Staff received equality and diversity training. Health checks were routinely offered to patients. Support with using online services was offered to those patients who needed it.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The practice had 55 patients on their palliative care register and these patients were reviewed in monthly multi-disciplinary meetings. Staff told us how they worked with patients, and their carers, to support them to understand their options regarding Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.

Processes were in place to support patients to make informed decisions about their future, and to review patients at the end of their lives. We saw that DNACPR and ReSPECT forms were completed in line with guidance and with the input of patients, and when necessary, their carers.