Castlegate & Derwent 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

At our previous inspection, the practice was rated requires improvement at providing a responsive service because, services were not planned or delivered in a way that met people's needs. They were unable to demonstrate that they had taken appropriate actions to address lower areas of satisfaction from patient feedback and were unable to demonstrate that any actions had been taken to record or address complaints. At this assessment we have rated the practice ( INSERT RATING)   However data from the most recent National GP Patient Survey indicated an overall decline in responsiveness from the practice and was consistently lower than local and national averages.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although the Patient Participation Group (PPG) provided positive feedback and at our last inspection the GP National Survey indicated the practice was above average. The latest national GP survey carried out in 2024 showed a decline in patient satisfaction both against local and national averages.

We saw evidence that patients had continuously raised the issue of availability of prescriptions at a pharmacy of their choice, this was highlighted at the last inspection. At the time of our assessment this was still not available to patients, this demonstrated the practice were not listening to patients when they expressed a preference that was important to them. Following our assessment the practice have implemented EPS.

During our site visits some leaders told us the mental health promotion and support delivered to farmers at the local auction would continue, whereas others told us there was not sufficient resources to do this. The practice told us they had changed the way they supported care home residents. A regular meeting took place at the practice where individual residents were discussed with other professionals such as paramedics and district nurses. a decision was then taken about what support people required and who would provide it. A care-coordinator role had been developed to oversee this process.

We consulted with stakeholders. They continued to express concerns over the practice and how it was run and operated.

We saw some evidence that the practice were able to provide holistic care to specific patient groups. It was unclear where the status of this was at the time of assessment. We noted the practice had not carried out any quality audits to establish whether the new process was successful.

We received no feedback from patients which would indicate a difficulty in obtaining information from the practice.

Staff told us patients were kept up to date via text messages and social media updates.

The practice had processes in place to provide accurate, appropriate and up to date information with patients including; signage and posters in waiting areas and social media. Additionally where English was not a persons first language translation services were available.

In 2023, the practice received scores above the local and national averages for patient satisfaction on the National GP Patient Survey. In the most recent survey carried out in 2024, results were now below averages while local and national averages had not declined.

Staff and leaders told us they continue to analyse patient feedback.

We saw evidence of the complaints process being ‘in progress’. There was a back log of 76 complaints, staff were unable to confirm which of these had been dealt with or if feedback had been provided to patients but did have a plan in place to resolve this.

In 2023, the practice received scores above the local and national averages for patient satisfaction on the National GP Patient Survey. In the most recent survey carried out in 2024, results were now below averages while local and national averages had not declined. We received feedback from patients who told us they struggled to get an appointment. The practice told us they had changed the way they supported care home residents. A regular meeting took place at the practice where individual residents were discussed with other professionals such as paramedics and district nurses. a decision was then taken about what support people required and who would provide it. A care-coordinator role had been developed to oversee this process.

Staff informed us that they were hopeful that a new total triage system which was soon to be introduced would improve patient access. We spoke with care home staff and asked them if the new service was satisfactory. they told us that they struggled to access GP's on behalf of their residents. they had not been consulted on the process and had not been asked for their ongoing feedback.

People were able to book appointments by telephone, face to face or through the online platforms. The practice offered various appointment options such as online appointments, home visits, telephone appointments and face to face appointments. There was a triage system in place to ensure people could be seen by the most appropriate clinician. For urgent and children’s appointments people were seen on the same day. Some appointments such as smear or contraception clinics required a two-week waiting time. Invitations for annual reviews were sent out at least six weeks prior to the appointment which was often within the birthday month. We noted the practice had not carried out any quality audits to establish whether the new process was successful.

In 2023, the practice received scores above the local and national averages for patient satisfaction on the National GP Patient Survey. In the most recent survey carried out in 2024, results were now below averages while local and national averages had not declined. The survey reported that 60% of patients with a disability or long term condition said the overall experience of the practice was good. Compared to 73% who did not have a disability or long term condition. The practice told us they had changed the way they supported care home residents. A regular meeting took place at the practice where individual residents were discussed with other professionals such as paramedics and district nurses. a decison was then taken about what support people required and who would provide it. A care-coordinator role had been developed to oversee this process.

Staff told us they continue to analyse patient feedback. We spoke with care home staff and asked them if the new service was satisfactory. they told us that they struggled to access GP's on behalf of their residents. they had not been consulted on the process and had not been asked for their ongoing feedback.

The practice waived the requirement for a home address for homeless people to ensure this population group accessed the GP services. The service also worked closely with the veterans and one of the staff has specialist knowledge of military related health conditions. The practice provided support to people with learning disabilities by providing some information in easy read format. Longer appointments during quieter times also were offered to this user group. We noted the practice had not carried out any quality audits to establish whether the new process was successful.

In 2023, the practice received scores above the local and national averages for patient satisfaction on the National GP Patient Survey. In the most recent survey carried out in 2024, results were now below averages while local and national averages had not declined.

Staff told us they continue to analyse patient feedback.

The practice regularly met to discuss patients who required palliative care.