Solent 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 assessed all quality statements under the Responsive key question. We found leaders used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. The practice was designed to be accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. 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.

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 told us that there was a person-centred approach to delivering care and the service provided care in a way that was inclusive to improve accessibility to vulnerable patient groups. We saw evidence of patient feedback being collated and reviewed monthly with improvements to service provision where needed.

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 many practice staff members 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 local 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 were offered onsite to support provision of care.

The practice recognised the diverse health and care needs of people and local communities, and continually promoted joined up and personalised care. The implementation of joint nursing clinics had been recognised with an award from the Trust. The practice provided evidence of upcoming personalised healthcare events for patients with a long term condition.

The practice had collated and sought feedback from service users after every consultation. We identified an approximate 3% return rate of total feedback requests in 2024. People received bespoke responses to feedback with an opportunity to discuss with senior leaders.

Leaders told us that the practice had received 78 patient feedback responses from 2,682 requests in September 2024. Practice newsletters were shared on the website and to staff highlighting performance and actions taken in response to themes and trends.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard. They told us there were several bilingual staff within the practice and this supported communication with patients. They also told us patients could request information in more accessible ways, such as in large print or braille. The practice had developed health literacy videos for patients with a learning disability. 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 information collected and shared by staff met data protection legislation requirements.

The practice website contained accessible information, 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 records.

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.

We were informed about the different ways 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.

There was a complaints process in place, including a complaints lead, and a policy. Information was also available on the practice website. There was an ongoing systematic review of concerns and complaints in place that promoted improvements in service delivery.

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.

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 demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve patient access. Surveys had been carried out in relation to patient satisfaction with appointment preferences. We saw evidence of audits completed in relation to access performance, such as appointment capacity and demand data, telephone waiting times, appointment waiting times and patient ‘Did Not Attend’ (DNA) rates per GP in order to assess performance. This also helped provide oversight to rota management and staffing arrangements to meet access demand.

Staff told us there were opportunities to raise service improvements via the practice voluntary support forum. Staff demonstrated actions that had been taken as a result of the forum to improve patient pathways and access. For example, the practice had implemented a new staff role, Care Navigator, to streamline patient requests to designated clinical teams so that people could receive care and treatment by the right person at the right time.

Leaders explained they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, leaders would identify frequent contactors via telephone audits and offer a more co-ordinated package of care, including referral to the social prescribing team where needed. The leaders promoted the use of their website and online consultation service to improve access and online forms were available to be submitted to the practice for urgent and routine care needs. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice and offered further support where required, including carers, people with learning disabilities and those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers.

Patient appointments were available either online, face to face, via telephone, or as a home visit. Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, walking-in and could also submit medical or admin requests online via the practice website. Cover arrangements were in place and a duty GP available, which included any urgent or follow-up care. Patients could book routine appointments up to 2 weeks in advance and same-day appointments were available each morning from 8:30am to 5.30pm. The practice offered appointments from a variety of clinical staff, for example GPs, health care assistants, pharmacists and practice nurses. The practice offered extended access arrangements outside of normal working hours provided by a GP and an advanced care practitioner on Saturday mornings and from 8pm to 10pm on weekdays through admin support and remote clinical access led by a GP.

The practice had offered people who were cared for at home and could not access the practice a routine proactive care review at home with a GP and also had support from advanced care practitioners. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising people based on need, including those receiving palliative care.

Staff had completed care navigation training and the practice had designed and implemented a triage process for staff to follow. This included what was an urgent priority and how to respond.

The practice had developed working with the local primary care network (PCN) to develop Integrated Neighbourhood Teams which focused on accessibility for vulnerable people and people with frailty.

The practice had reviewed and audited telephone access data which included the total number of inbound calls daily; queue waiting times and call abandonments. We saw documented actions that had been taken to improve access to services such as additional administrative cover during increased demand and adjusting patient communication on the telephone queue system during busy periods and callbacks.

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 described the systems used to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English nor have access to the internet to promote equity in experience and outcomes. Staff told us parents or guardians calling with concerns about a child were offered a same day appointment when necessary.

The practice had designed and implemented a priority-based approach (Red, Amber, Green (RAG)) in response to feedback from patients who required additional support. There was a defined threshold criteria for meeting the RAG-rated levels including co-morbidities, number of prescribed medicines and vulnerability status. Appointment slots were reserved daily for those were coded as ‘Red’ and reasonable adjustments were in place such as additional appointment time and a named GP for continuity of care. As a result, these people with urgent care requests were able to be seen in a timely manner in conjunction with the appointment triage system.

The practice had met the accessible information standard to ensure all people, including those with communication needs could receive effective care and treatment. The practice was able to demonstrate reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The premises had a portable hearing loop in place for patients with a hearing impairment. Accessible communication formats such as large print materials and information in braille was available when required. During our assessment, we observed the translation service system which was able to efficiently assist service users and staff.

The practice had carried out a review of registered carers and sought feedback to request what support would carers like to receive. As a result of the survey, the practice identified a 113% increase in registered carers and had implemented one to one care wellbeing support sessions through invitations with the practice care team.

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. Patients on the practice palliative care register and 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.

Staff were trained and had guidance to review and ensure specific care plans were identified for people to ensure their resuscitation and emergency treatment wishes were known. The provider had access to annual training for staff in relation to mental capacity act and learning disabilities and consent.

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 their carers.