Wheal Northey Also known as Wheal Northey Site

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 in the responsive key question. Our rating for this key question remains good. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. There was a process in place to clinically review requests for appointments which were allocated according to urgency. A team of clinicians were available to see people on-the-day for urgent appointment. The practice understood their patient population. 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.

People had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff treated people as individuals and with respect. Staff told us they got to know people during regular appointments and were able to offer care and treatment in a person-centred manner. Staff told us where necessary, people benefitted from seeing the same healthcare professional.

Staff and leaders worked together in a multi-disciplinary approach to ensure people received the appropriate support at the right time. Some staff told us they had completed specialist training and had additional responsibilities linked to their role. For example, a diabetes nurse had training and experience in diabetes management and good knowledge of how other local services support with this.

Local residential care homes had named clinicians to support the continuity of care for people. Feedback from partners was very positive on how they worked together with the practice to support people. The practice listened to the concerns of partners to understand the needs of the people they support.

The practice considered the importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care when delivering care and treatment. There were teams in place to meet the specific needs of people. For example, there was a team that dealt with requests for urgent, on-the-day appointments. Routine appointments were available and were booked in advance with the person’s named GP. There were established systems in place to support people with a multi-disciplinary approach.

The GP Patient Survey reported people knew what the next step would be after contacting the service.

Staff communicated in a way that helped people to understand their care. Staff told us they provided information to people in a way that helped them to understand their health needs and gave advice where required.

There was a system in place for staff to access interpretation services to support people who did not have English as a first language. The practice website contained information about accessibility. For example, there were links to easy-read documents with pictures and simple text to help people understand why they needed to see a GP. The website also listed specific information for people on subjects such as the winter vaccination programme, mental health and the Pharmacy First approach.

The GP Patient Survey reported people felt listened to.

Staff were able to explain the importance of listening to people during their appointment. They supported people to be involved in decisions about care and treatment. They told us complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared in team meetings.

Complaints were investigated and where necessary, an apology was made. Formal and informal complaints were recorded, reviewed and where learning was identified, actions were implemented. Patient feedback was collated, reviewed and used to support service improvement.

People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. However, some people told us they found contacting the practice difficult. The GP Patient Survey identified phone contact was particularly challenging with 24% of responders saying it was easy to contact the practice by phone compared with a national average of 50%.

Staff and leaders explained how they understood the needs of the local population and had developed the service in response. Staff told us they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities. Leaders were aware of the challenges of current phone access for people and were exploring options to improve this.

There were systems and processes in place for prioritising people presenting with the highest need, and staff had access to guidance to support decision making regarding prioritisation. There was information available for people to support them to understand how to access services (including on websites and telephone messages). Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the practice and to CQC, was varied. Some people’s experience was positive however, some people with mental health needs told us they did not feel they got the right support at the right time to meet their needs.

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.

The practice has a process to triage requests for home visits which if required, were carried out by either a GP, nurse, or emergency care practitioner. There was an equality, diversity, and inclusion policy. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions. All sites were fully wheelchair accessible through the front door and each location had either ground floor treatment rooms or a lift to support accessibility needs. The practice had hosted a drop-in session to support people with who found it difficult to access services online.

People had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff told us they attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss supporting people receiving end of life care. Some staff had experience of palliative care to enable them to support people with complex care needs.

Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made in line with relevant legislation. We reviewed 4 patient records and found 1 of these records stated the individual lacked capacity to make this decision but there was no further information and no capacity assessment in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Following our site visit, the practice took action to review this DNACPR decision with the appropriate people. The practice also initiated an audit process for these records and reviewed a proportion of them to ensure they had been completed appropriately. End of life care was delivered in a coordinated way which considered the needs of those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. People’s wishes were recorded on their patient record which were available to local health providers who may need to access them.