Sudbury and Alperton 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

We assessed all the quality statements for this key question. Our rating for this key question is good. We found that the service had improved since our previous inspection. The practice delivered services taking account of people’s preferences and potential inequalities. People were able to access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs. The service responded to complaints and other patient feedback in line with their policy and used complaints and feedback to improve the quality of care.

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.

Feedback on patient-centred care was mixed. People who provided feedback for this assessment spoke positively about the care they received. They informed us they were given options and advice regarding medicines and lifestyle changes, and they felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2023) showed that 83% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This was lower than other practices in Brent where the average for this indicator was 91%.

Leaders and staff told us they always aimed to provide a patient-centred and empathetic service. For example, one member of staff was designated as a ‘carer’s champion’ to ensure that carers’ needs were not missed.

Staff and leaders told us they could facilitate continuity of care for non-urgent issues and clinicians were able to book follow-up appointments with individual patients when they needed to review progress. One of the partners was the lead doctor for people registered with the practice who lived at a local care home and they liaised with local community teams, (for example the palliative care team) and staff at the home to coordinate people’s care. Staff described having positive links with community health and social service professionals.

Partners did not raise any specific concerns about care provision, integration and continuity as part of this assessment.

Staff had access to clear referral pathways and templates. People were able to access a first-contact physiotherapist and a dietician directly through the practice. (These professionals were funded by the primary care network).

People told us clinicians were thorough and explained information in a way they could understand.

Leaders informed us that many staff spoke languages other than English and this helped them provide explanations to people and aid communication during the consultation when the relevant staff were available. Formal translation services were also available and, any requirement was noted in the patient record so the interpreter could be booked in advance.

The practice had a comprehensive website which included information about how to register and access the service (including online); information about the practice team and services provided; requests for feedback and links to NHS information about a wide range of conditions and treatments. The site included an accessibility statement but did not include the facility to automatically translate the text into other languages. The practice had conducted a feedback survey and asked people about their experience of the website. Almost two-thirds of respondents said they had used it. Of people using the site, around 60% reported finding it ‘very easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ to use.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2024) showed that 83% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment (Brent result 85%, National result 87%). The percentage of people reporting that during their last GP appointment they felt as involved as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment was 96%. This was an improvement over the previous year when the practice scored 80% on this question.

Staff informed us that complaints were listened and responded to and used to improve the quality of care.

There was a clear complaints policy and process and we saw evidence that the staff and leaders followed the process when people made a complaint about the service.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2024) showed that 50% of respondents found it easy to get through to this practice by phone (Brent result 58%, National result 50%). This was an improvement since our previous inspection when the practice had scored 41% for this indicator (2022).

Staff informed us that the practice had improved access to the service in response to patient feedback and complaints. For example, a new cloud-based telephony system had been installed, there were more notices displaying the practice opening hours, and a notice requesting people inform reception staff of their arrival for an appointment. The new telephony system enabled calls to be queued and monitored more efficiently. For example, staff could see when queues were building up so more staff could be allocated to answering calls.

People were able to book an appointment by telephone, in person or by submitting an online consultation form. People could choose to attend either the main or branch surgeries. People could be seen for acute problems at a local ‘hub’ service during weekday evenings or weekends if no suitable appointments were available at the practice within a few days.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. We found no evidence of unfair discrimination. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

Leaders could describe how they had addressed barriers to improving people’s experience. 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. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. There were systems in place for recording people’s particular needs on the patient record system, for example, their preferred form of address.

People did not raise any specific concerns about how they were supported with planning for the future.

Staff supported people to make decisions and where appropriate, assessed and recorded the person’s mental capacity to make a decision.

Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made in line with relevant legislation and showed that, where possible, the patient’s views had been sought and respected.