OHP-The Meadows Medical Practice

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

The responsive key question remains rated as good. One quality statement, Equity in Access, was included in this assessment. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. A series of embedded and comprehensive audits regarding access were used to drive improvement at the practice. The practice identified and allocated resources as required to improve inequalities and support equity of access.

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.

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.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs. The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as the GP patient survey, friends and family complaints and via informal feedback from patients. All non-clinical staff were trained in care navigation. The practice undertook ongoing audits to determine demand and capacity regarding their appointment system and continued to monitor the availability of appointments and staff on a daily basis. The practice told us that they had adjusted appointments each afternoon and longer appointments were available with clinicians for routine appointments. We found that patient feedback regarding access to care and treatment was significantly higher than national averages and this had been consistent for the past 2 years. We received feedback from 146 patients who made positive comments about the service. Patients could access appointments by phone, online and by visiting the practice. The practice used a sign-posting triage system where reception staff would ask the patient for enough information to make a decision regarding which clinician was appropriate for them to see. Patients were given the option of a face to face or remote appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. The range of options included by telephone, by visiting the practice, and online. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, and in person by visiting the practice. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, or as a home visit. Same day appointments were available and patients could book routine appointments up to 2 weeks in advance. Appointments with GPs were available on weekdays 8.30am to 5.30pm. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example the nurses, health care assistant, clinical pharmacist, mental health practitioner, first contact physio and social prescriber. A dispensary service was also available. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients and longer appointments were available during the afternoon throughout the week. Appointments were adjusted to take into account demand from patients where needed and staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services and had access to a duty doctor.

The leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and told us they regularly reviewed staffing and appointments due to the rural location of the practice and to meet the needs of the population. They had recruited additional clinical and non clinical staff to meet the demands for urgent, routine and minor injury appointments and gave flexibility for longer routine appointments where needed. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day and the practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. The range of options included by telephone, by visiting the practice, and online. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode. We spoke with management, and it was clear that there were steps in place to continue to review feedback, analyse data and prioritise demand where it was needed. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care.

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.