Studholme Medical Centre

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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. We reviewed 2 quality statements in the Responsive key question – Listening to and involving people and Equity in access. The scores for the other quality statements are based on the previous rating for this key question.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed results in line with national averages. The National GP Patient Survey showed that 85% of patients said the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them. The national average was 85%. The National GP Patient survey showed that 92% of patients said that during their last GP appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. The national average was 90%.

Staff described ways in which they had obtained feedback from patients, such as a recent survey with patients who were identified as carers to which the response was generally positive. Staff also showed us the patient feedback form that was available in the waiting area. Leaders in the service told us that the practice was engaging with their Patient Participation Group (PPG). Staff told us they thought the practice listened to patients when they raised complaints and described examples where feedback or complaints from patients had led to a change in process within the practice and further training being provided to staff.

The service kept a record of all formal complaints received and any action taken as a result of complaints. The service had received 23 complaints in the twelve months prior to our assessment. We saw that complaints received by the service were investigated and responded to in a timely manner but found in some cases further signposting could be included. Complainants were provided with an explanation as to the findings of any investigation. We found the service reviewed patient feedback made directly to the service, through the patient participation group as well as NHS Direct reviews and the National GP Patient survey results. We saw that the practice acted on feedback and made improvements where possible.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed results which were below national averages. Patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 33% of patients responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment. The national average was 54%. The National GP Patient Survey showed that 22% of patients responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone. The national average was 50%. Approximately half of the feedback we received from patients over the last twelve month described difficulties accessing appointments, for example long wait times when they telephoned and having to wait for appointments. Some patients told us that they had a good experience of booking an appointment, for example being called back by a clinician or offered a face-to-face appointment the same day.

Staff told us they thought that changes to the practice systems had improved the experience patients had when trying to access care, with several ways in which patients could request appointments. Staff and leaders told us that they had dedicated care co-ordinators who provided support to vulnerable groups of patients, for example for those who found it helpful the care coordinator would phone patients on the day of an appointment to remind them. Staff described how the practice supported patients who may find it difficult to access care, such as those who were homeless or living in immigration centres. Staff described how they prioritised patients who were reporting symptoms that may be clinical emergencies such as sepsis, stroke or heart attack. Staff also told us how valuable it was to have clinicians sitting in the reception back office supporting staff with incoming calls and queries.

We saw evidence that the service had regularly reviewed how patients accessed care and were often early adopters of systems and processes designed to improve access for patients. The service had made improvements to both their online booking system and telephone system in order to make it easier for patients to access care. We also saw that the service worked closely with specialists and social prescribers to provide appropriate care and support for patients. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from members of the community, the service had identified ways to improve access. For example, patients could access the service to suit their needs such as online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. A ramp and a door opening mechanism which reduced the force needed to open the door had been fitted at the entrance to the practice.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.