Rope Green Medical Centre Also known as Dr Hadrill and Partners

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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. However, the service was not always easy to access.

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.

The friends and family test carried out by the service demonstrated that 92% of patients between April 2023 to December 2024 felt involved in their care and positive about their experience.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice was involved in their primary care network to provide services relevant to patients in their practice.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services. The practice was registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service enabled 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 patient feedback, including complaints. However, we found that information on how to complain was not easily accessible on the practice website.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patient feedback about their experience of accessing the practice was mostly negative. The percentage of respondents to the GP Patient Survey who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 34.2% in March 2024 which was below the national average of 49.7%. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was below the national average.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had implemented changes to improve access to the service. For example, the practice used a full triage system, all requests were reviewed by a GP and daily urgent appointments were protected for urgent cases.

However, peoples’ care, treatment and support was accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

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 cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.