Woodingdean 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

Overall the provider is rated as good for providing responsive services. However, not everyone could access care, treatment and support when they need to and in a way that worked for them. We found one breach of regulation 17 Good Governance. This was because the provider had not effectively used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people, especially those more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

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.

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.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We received 96 Give Feedback on Care (GFOC) forms. Sixty-nine of those were negative about their experience accessing the service. People commented that they found it difficult to get through on the phone and that when they did, there were no appointments left for that day. They told us that the practice did not provide any pre-bookable appointments and that they were advised to call back the next day instead. This meant that people often had to try on consecutive days to get an appointment without success. In addition, they told us the practice did not provide a facility for on-line booking. People perceived those that went to the practice in person at 8 am would get an appointment before those who phoned when the phone lines opened at 8.30 am. Patients who worked during the day and could not get on the phone at 8.30 am felt disadvantaged. Whilst the practice did sign post patients to walk-in and urgent care facilities, this was not always easy or convenient, for example for those with disabilities or parents with young children. Twenty-five GFOC forms were positive about good treatment and care. Staff were praised for being friendly, helpful, caring, and professional. Two GFOC forms provided mixed feedback. People said it was difficult to get an appointment but when they did the service was good. The results of national GP patient survey (July 2023) placed the practice below the local and England average for all indicators related to access. 35% found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone ICS result: 47% National result: 50%.40% were satisfied with the general practice appointment times available ICS result: 50%National result: 53%. 67% were satisfied with the appointment they were offered. Healthwatch told us that 7 patients had contacted them recently complaining about difficulties getting appointments. We spoke with two members of the Patient Participation Group who also told us people were finding it increasingly difficult to access the service.

We spoke with practice leaders who told us that they had recruited additional clinical staff to provide more appointments. They had also re-introduced the one line triage and appointment facility along with pre-bookable appointments. During our assessment they met with the local Healthwatch to plan a patient engagement exercise focusing on access. They told us they were working with the primary care network on a plan to improve access in the locality. They had also made a successful bid for transformation funds to change to a Modern General Practice Access Model. The funds would be used to improve processes for prescription requests and queries to ensure safer, efficient & timely prescribing in response to patient requests and needs, reducing the burden on clinical and non-clinical staff. We sent a survey to practice staff who told us there were enough appointments for the demand. However they felt with the additional GPs that had been appointed and more pre-bookable slots that the situation would improve.

Patients could book an appointment in person, via the phone or on line. Using a triage protocol, details were taken by call handlers, supported by the duty doctor in determining clinical priorities for the day. Face to face appointments were encouraged but phone consultations were also offered. If all appointments were full and a patient needed to see a GP urgently, then the duty GP would be contacted. Extended access was provided locally by a federation of GPs, where late evening and weekend appointments were available. Patients with communication needs had access to interpreting services, a hearing induction loop, and a text relay service. At the time of our assessment the providers on line booking facility had been closed for several months. On the day appointments were the only option and when these were full the phone lines switched to an automated message explaining this. The message signposted patients to pharmacy, NHS 111, A&E, urgent treatment and walk-in centres, and mental health support. However, it was not obvious from the message that patients still had the facility to speak to a receptionist. The practice was unable to identify patients that had called on consecutive days and still not got an appointment. The provider monitored and reviewed access through complaints, feedback from the PPG and staff. There was limited evidence to show how the provider had effectively utilised and acted on this. It was unable to demonstrate how the national GP survey results had been used to inform improvement and it had not undertaken its own patient survey. Calls were monitored, including call waiting times, duration, missed and abandoned calls. During the assessment the provider told us that they had updated their telephone message, started providing pre-bookable appointments and re-opened the on-line triage and appointment facility. It had also recruited additional GPs.

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.