Neston 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 assessed all quality statement from this key question. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. The rating remains good following this assessment.

The service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The service provided person centred care and treatment whereby people’s individual needs and wishes were respected and acted upon.

People who used the service provided positive feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. People were able to access the service readily and staff were trained to direct people to the most appropriate clinician or service to meet their needs.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and outcomes.

People who used the service were supported to live healthier lives and supported to make decisions about their future care.

The information provided to patients for making a complaint only included the option to do this online and we found the responses to complaints were not always appropriately detailed. The provider took action to review the complaints procedure and address these shortfalls following our assessment.

Clinicians were available to see people on-the-day for urgent appointment requests.

The provider understood their patient population and they identified and made changes to improve their service where required.

.

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.

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. Feedback from people who used the service was that they were supported to understand their condition and involved in decision about their care and treatment and in planning for their future needs.

The clinical staff team were long standing and this provided consistency for people who used the service. Staff told us where necessary, people benefitted from seeing the same healthcare professional.

Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan patient care and treatment so that people’s needs could be met holistically.

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 needs of its community, for example, working hard to promote the take up of screening programmes.

The provider supported people living in a local care home with named clinicians to support continuity of care for people. Feedback from a local partner was very positive on how they worked together with the practice to support people. They told us that all staff listened to their requests and acted promptly and efficiently.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. People were provided with information about their health and treatment options for them to make an informed decision.

The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services.

Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

Feedback from people who used the service in the National GP Patient survey showed that 97% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment.

The practice had access to interpreter services to support people who do not use English as their first language. The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

Patients responded very positively in the National GP patient survey for questions related to the healthcare professional being good or very good at listening to them and involving them as much as they wanted in decisions about their care.

The provider monitored patient views via the NHS Friends and Family Test and NHS and online feedback. Feedback shared with CQC directly by people who used the service was positive with regards to people feeling listened to and involved in decisions.

During the assessment we met with a member of the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and the feedback we received was positive. We were told that relationships between the group and the practice were good. Members of the PPG felt listened to and could make suggestions and improvements which would be acted upon.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues. Feedback from people who used the service was reviewed and used to support service improvement.

People could make a complaint online but we found there was no alternative information to support people who do not use online services. The final written outcome to complainants for the sample of complaints we looked at did not always provide details for the second stage of a complaint. Following our assessment the provider took action to review the complaints process and produced a complaints leaflet and revised response letters to include the second stage of the complaints process.

The provider made sure that people could access care, support and treatment when they needed it. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice was 90% and 84% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment.

Staff told us they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities.

There was information available to support people to understand how to access the service. Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours. People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. There were systems and processes in place to prioritise people presenting with the highest need.

The premises were purpose built and fully accessible for people who were physically disabled. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and an automatic door was provided to the entrance.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff and leaders ensured they were able to recognise patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they tailored the service to meet their care, support and treatment needs in response to this.

People who used the service had equal opportunities to access reviews of their care, treatment and medicines and people were invited for health screening and immunisation with high rates of uptake by the patient population.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the local patient population, and the difficulties people may encounter. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

The provider monitored data about the care and treatment provided to patients. Available data showed that people experienced similar to or better outcomes for care and treatment when compared to services locally and nationally. The results of the National GP patient survey showed that 98% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment and 90% described their overall experience of the practice as good.

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and supported to plan for these.

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. Staff told us they attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss supporting people receiving end of life care.