The Street Lane 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

We carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive at The Street Lane Practice on 21 March 2024. Overall, the practice is rated as good. Following this assessment, the key question of responsive remains rated as good. The assessment was carried out to understand people’s experiences in accessing GP services. We know demand for GP appointments remains exceptionally high with more appointments being requested than ever. Despite this increase in demand, we recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in, through their staff, in ensuring that they provide safe, quality care to the people that use their services. We recognise that due to the increase in demand access to services remains a concern for the public. We carried out the assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet increased demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. The assessment of the quality statement equity of access includes looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

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 reviewed processes for people with learning disabilities and significant mental health who undergo annual reviews at the practice. Full annual health reviews required input from different healthcare practitioners such as the GP, pharmacist, nurse or healthcare assistant. As a result, some of the patients required up to three visits to the practice to complete these annual reviews. To reduce the number of visits patients were booked with a prescribing clinician who undertook all elements of the review in one visit. There was a cloud-based telephone system which provided data on the volume of calls the practice received. Staff at the practice used this data to identify the peak times for incoming calls. As a result, the practice reviewed staff working routines to ensure sufficient staff cover during peak call times. This reduced call waiting times and improved overall patient experience. The practice engaged regularly with their local Patient Participation Group (PPG). The PPG alongside practice staff was involved in analysing the most recent GP Patient Survey results and provided feedback on the new practice website.

The latest GP patient survey results for this practice were published in July 2023. The results indicated that the provider was performing in line or above local and national averages. 76% of the patients had a good overall experience at this GP practice compared to the national average of 71%. The survey results also showed that 52% of the patients found it easy to access this practice by phone. This was in line with the national average which was 50%. The surgery obtained feedback from patients through the Friends and Family Test. Patients were able to leave feedback on the practice website. Data obtained from patients indicated high levels of positive feedback. The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) group that met regularly and provided direct feedback to the practice. The practice worked closely with the Patient Participation Group and utilised the feedback to help improve the service. For example, the practice reviewed and increased the capacity of its telephony access system as a direct response to feedback from the PPG as patients were previously experiencing longer call waiting times. The practice was in a purpose-built building which was accessible by wheelchair. The reception had a lowered down desk which made it accessible to most users.

Patients had access to a range of options when booking appointments. They could book appointments in person, telephone or via the online platform PATCHS. Requests for appointments were triaged by clinicians to ensure demand was managed and prioritised based on clinical need and urgency. Following the triage, patients were allocated appointments based on their needs. The practice offered a range of appointment types to suit different needs such as home visits, telephone, online and face to face. The triage clinician determined the most appropriate route of consultation also taking in to account the patient’s preference. At this service, patients were also able to access services of other healthcare professionals such as phlebotomist and pharmacists. The practice opened during weekdays and remained closed during weekends and bank holidays. The core opening hours were 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, the practice offered appointments till 8:00 pm to ensure improved access for younger people and those of a working age. Patients were also able to access the Enhanced Access Service outside of the practice core opening hours. This ensured patients could access healthcare practitioners during weekends or evenings where appropriate. Some patients such as those with learning disabilities and serious mental health conditions were offered extended face to face appointments. This ensured sufficient time for consultation as some of them presented with several needs. To overcome language barriers, the practice offered translation services for patients who could not communicate their needs in English. Where appropriate the practice provided information in easy read format to ensure information remained accessible to the patient. The practice was in a purpose-built building which was accessible by wheelchair.

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.