Elm Tree Medical Centre Also known as Dr Farah Zafar and Dr Ellahi Mansoor

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 carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive and found: The practice had organised services to meet patients’ needs. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek and improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people including those most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and developed opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. The practice monitored, reviewed and analysed information, data and feedback related to patient’s experiences when accessing care at the service. Opportunities to improve were identified, initiatives implemented, and changes designed to improve access. Patients’ experiences and satisfaction levels were consistently high. Systems implemented were evaluated for effectiveness and continuously monitored and reviewed as necessary.

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.

Leaders demonstrated they were aware of challenges to patient access and had acted to provide good access equitably. They implemented initiatives and improved services in response to patient surveys and patient feedback relating to access. Changes were assessed to make sure patients were not disadvantaged and the impact of the changes was monitored. Leaders explained they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities including adjustments to the registration process, and to how patients could communicate with the practice. They demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people, asylum seekers and refugees and international students. We heard about changes they had made including changes to staffing, appointment availability on days of the week identified as having access pressures, embargoed review slots, and availability of extended hours services. The practice promoted the use of their website, online consultation and digital technology to improve access. A range of appointment types were available. Traditional methods of access were available to those who were not digitally proficient. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care, including the local Primary Care Network (PCN), GP Federation and Integrated Care Board (ICB). It was clear that improving access and patient experience was a priority. They reviewed data, feedback and changes were made to ensure improvements would have a positive impact for their patients.

Patients could book appointments by a variety of technological and traditional methods. Information regarding registration and access was displayed in the practice, on social media and online. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, online or as a home visit. Same day and pre bookable appointments were readily available. Weekday evenings and at the weekend appointments were available through an extended access arrangement with other local GP practices in the network. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained and supported by documented protocols to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services. The practice offered appointments from a variety of clinical staff for example doctors, advanced nurse practitioners, practice nurse, and healthcare assistants. They also offered appointments with advanced role clinicians through the PCN such as physician associates and pharmacists. Information on how to access care out of normal GP hours was available on the telephone message system, social media, online and at the practice. We saw evidence that the number of available clinician appointments offered each week was adjusted, suitable for the population need and met requirements of the GP contract. Feedback from patients was continually monitored. We were shown and told about feedback that was gathered, reviewed and acted upon. We saw resulting initiatives in place such as a new digital telephone system, appointment and triage hub, and an increase in different role staffing.

In the 2023 National GP Patient Survey, the practice’s data demonstrated responses to patient satisfaction with GP practice appointment times, how easy it is to get through to the practice by phone, satisfaction with the appointment offered, and with the overall experience of making an appointment were significantly more positive than the national and local averages. Performance in these areas was consistently high in previous years also. Patient feedback gathered by the practice was also very positive. 100% of respondents to the Friends and Family Test (FFT) between September and December 2023 said their overall experience of the practice was good or very good. (England average was 91%). Patients differing individual needs were recognised and adaptations were made. For example, for those whose first language was not English, vulnerable people and patients who had information and communication needs. People could access care, treatment and support in a way which promotes equality and protects rights. The practice was accessible to patients with differing physical and mental health needs including those with reduced mobility, disabilities, and those who were hard of hearing. We found leaders gathered and reviewed patient feedback by a variety of methods, responded to it and were continuously improving. Elm Tree medical centre understood and recognised their patient population and delivered services to meet their needs. Feedback and data demonstrated peoples experience for access at this practice was very positive.

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.