Nexus Health Group

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 from this key question. At the last rated inspection, this key question was rated requires improvement due to patient experiences and access to appointments. At this assessment we found the provider had a good understanding of the local population and complied with the accessible information standards. They had arrangements in place to identify people’s communication needs and preferences. The practice told us all staff had undertaken training on equality and diversity. There was an effective complaints process and the patient complaints we reviewed had been responded to appropriately. However, results from the most recent National GP Patient Survey indicated an overall decline in patient satisfaction, which was lower than local and national averages.

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 result of the National GP Patient Survey 2024 showed that 88% of 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. We spoke to a member of the Patient Participation Group (PPG) who told us that they usually had an appointment with the same GP and that their needs were understood.

The staff we spoke to demonstrated a good understanding of their patients and the practice had developed the service in response to those needs. Alerts were added to patient records so staff could identify additional needs or preferences. The practice maintained lists of patients with specific needs, including those with learning disabilities, and actively identified patients who were carers. Double appointments were offered to patients who needed them. Patients with learning disabilities were offered hour long annual reviews with a nurse, and they were given a named care coordinator. Home visits were available for house bound patients and through the triage system if needed for all other patients.

The importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care was reflected in the services provided. The staff we spoke to understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community.

We received no concerns from partners regarding the care provision, integration and continuity of this practice.

Clinical staff held multidisciplinary meetings to ensure joined-up care. Patients had a choice of face to face or telephone appointments with a GP, nurse or Physician Associate. The practice provided for patients with specific needs with an elderly care team, a diabetic champion, and a clinic for asylum seekers.

We did not receive any patient feedback which directly related to providing information.

Staff and leaders told us they provided information that was tailored to individual needs. They highlighted on patients record if they had any communication or accessibility needs.

The practice displayed information posters to inform patients of the new total triage system. Patients were advised that reception staff were able to support them in completing triage forms when needed. The practice website also contains full details on how to make an appointment, the services available and how to make a complaint. The website also provided information on accessibility for each site. The practice offered written in information in larger print and staff had access to vision request. Translation services and a hearing loop were available to patients at all sites. The practice published a monthly newsletter informing patients of any changes of staff, the services provided and performance data.

The National GP Patient Survey in 2024 showed that 86% say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the national average.

Staff demonstrated that the practice actively sought and monitored patient feedback and developed action plans to improve patient experience. Staff we spoke to understood the complaints process and where to direct patients who wished to complain or provide feedback.

The practice had an effective complaints process which was displayed on the website. During this assessment we sampled three complaints and found that they had been investigated and responded to appropriately.

We reviewed the Friends and Family test results for October 2024 which indicated that 88% of respondents rated their overall experience of Nexus Health Group as Very good or Good. The service had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG), which the practice routinely approached for feedback on the services they provided. We spoke to a member of the PPG who told us that during PPG meetings the practice will invite feedback and suggestions from members to help drive improvements.

However, patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey (2024) indicated that the practice was performing below national averages regarding equity in access. We saw that from 115 responses out of 624 surveys, 27% of patients find it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone (National Average 50%) and 51% of patients were satisfied with their experience of contacting the practice (National Average 67%). Although we saw evidence that patient experience is improving, the full effect of these improvements will not be seen until the result of this year’s national GP patient survey are published.

We found that the provider actively sought and responded to patient feedback. Staff told us that in response to the National GP Patient Survey they introduced a total triage system which allowed patients to choose the best appointment to suit their needs. A new telephone system was introduced in May 2023 and allowed the practice to monitor calls more effectively. Staff shared data with us indicating that the triage system had helped to reduce the number of calls received by 25%, and the average call wait time had fallen from 15 minutes to 7 minutes. Staff also told us that the triage system had helped to increase the availability of appointments. Customer service training was provided to non-clinical staff to help improve patients’ overall experience of contacting the practice. Although the provider demonstrated the steps they were taking to improve patient experience, the effect of these efforts were not yet reflected in patient feedback.

Patients could access appointments online through the practice website, via the NHS App and by telephone call to a centralised call centre. There was a dedicated telephone line for patients with disabilities or who were elderly or vulnerable. Appointments were available at each site from Monday to Friday between 8am and 6.30pm. Appointments with a nurse were available for children outside of school hours. The practice is a member of North Southwark Primary Care Network (PCN) with extended access provided by QHS. All sites were accessible to people with additional needs including disabled/pram access, audio loops, and interpreter services.

We did not receive any patient feedback which directly related to equity in experiences and outcomes.

Staff and leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes.

The practice actively identified people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. The practice nurse maintained a list of patients with learning disabilities, and an alert was recorded on patient records to indicate when additional support was required. A clinic for asylum seekers was held which included an interpreter and patients with no fixed address were able to register with the practice.

We did not receive any patient feedback which directly related to planning for the future.

During this assessment staff told us how they considered the needs of people, listened to them and supported them to make informed choices about their care and plan their future while they have the capacity to do so.

The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about planning for the future. We reviewed five records where do not attempt resuscitation agreements were in place. In each case we saw that the service had undertaken correct consent procedures with the patient.