Gatacre Street 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 looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 71 (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. Patient feedback through the National GP Patient survey results in 2024 showed that patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. (93% responded positively compared to 92% across the Integrated Care System (ICS) and 91% in England).

Staff told us they had implemented systems to ensure people’s records fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs; including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. People could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them, as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff provided care and treatment in a way that met patients’ needs using a person-centred approach. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population including taking part in vaccination programmes. Staff at the practice worked closely with the local care homes providing regular ward rounds. Patients could access appointments during core hours. Extended access was also available in the evenings and weekends providing patients with more flexibility when booking appointments.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was available in a range of formats including easy read and large print where appropriate. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Codes were utilised on the system to identify patients who required information in accessible format.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of this feedback.

According to GP Patient Survey data from 2024, only 35% of people surveyed found it easy to contact this practice via telephone. This was below the national average for England which was 50% and 52% for the Integrated Care System (ICS). Data from the survey also indicated that most people found it difficult to contact this practice using the website, as only 22% found it easy. This was also below the average for England which was 48% and 51% for the ICS.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had increased the number of staff who answered calls and book appointments from 6 to 12. As a result, more people were able to get through to the practice when they called. According to the data from the call logs, this had directly reduced call waiting times and call abandonment rates significantly. Patients could also book appointments online at any time which helped reduce the pressure on the telephones. The practice’s own recent data showed that more people were accessing appointments when compared to data from the previous years. As this was classed as a deep end practice, staff were also aware of some of the challenges that make it harder for people to access services including socioeconomic factors. The deep end initiative was developed to support reduction of health inequalities using locally developed solutions to make it easier for people to access support.

The practice converted some of the available space into extra consultation rooms to help meet demand for services. Despite this and other improvements carried out, the service continued to work with outside stakeholders such as the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) to find alternative longer-term arrangements which would ensure that this GP practice would be able to cope with increasing demands for its services.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with various local organisations and groups to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, they provided longer appointments for people with learning disabilities and home visits for housebound patients. The provider had inclusive processes to ensure people could easily register with the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as the homeless, veterans and refugees. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service. For example, people were invited to share feedback via text messages after every appointment.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care including regular reviews of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) documents. This information was shared with other services when necessary.