Civic 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 carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, ‘Equity in access’ on 13 March 2024. We found that the practice had organised services to meet patients’ needs, particularly those who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider used feedback from patients and other information to monitor and improve access. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely, including for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised and allocated resources to tackle inequalities and achieve 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 used an internet based telephone system to manage access and appointments and regular reports relating to call numbers and call waits were available as part of this system. The provider used information from this to inform staffing requirements and to flex capacity in response to demand. The provider’s website provided advise for patients on how they could book an appointment. Patients could request an appointment through a range of options, for example through phoning the practice, visiting the practice, using the on-line appointment system or using the on-line consultation service. 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 two weeks in advance. The provider told us they saw the majority of patients on the same day and that they were preparing to move to a triage first model whereby all patient request would be triaged and dealt with on the day of contact. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained 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, GPs, physician associate, pharmacist, practice nurse and health care assistant. Additional roles provided by the primary care network (PCN) included pharmacists, mental health practitioners, a cardiovascular nurse, wellbeing practitioners, health coaches and care co-ordinators. The practice maintained a register of patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable so that they could be easily identified, and services provided to meet their needs. For example, through prioritising appointments, providing health checks and regular reviews of care and treatment.

The practice received higher than average patient satisfaction scores relating to access in the 2023 national GP patient survey. For example, 72% of patients responded positively to their experience of getting through to the practice by phone compared to a national average of 49.6%. Patient satisfaction with their overall experience of making an appointment was 77.4% compare to the national average of 54.4%. Patient feedback gathered through the NHS Friends and Family Test showed that in excess of 90% of patients described the service as ‘good’ or ‘very’ good over the past six months. The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the ‘Accessible information standards’. The patient record system was used to alert staff to any particular communication needs of the patient so that staff could then communicate effectively with the patient. Information could be made available in alternative languages and formats including easy read materials and large print. The premises were accessible to patients with mobility needs as reasonable adjustments had been made to accommodate people’s needs. The provider adapted the way services were provided in order to be responsive to patient's needs. For example the support provided to people with a learning disability included the provision of health checks in surroundings that were familiar to the person and dedicated staff with experience and training to meet people’s needs and provide consistency and familiarity. Staff had access to a prosthetic breast and testicular kit to demonstrate to patients how to examine themselves and what they should be looking for. Patients with a mental health concern could attend the practice outside of normal opening hours and these patients could also be seen by a dedicated mental health practitioner linked to the primary care network.

The provider understood the needs of the local patient population and services had been developed in response to these. The leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve patient access. The leaders explained they provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, services for people with a learning disability were set up so as to encourage and support people to attend for regular health checks and to support people to carry out some important checks for themselves. The provider promoted the use of their website and online consultation service to improve access and patients could use an online service to book appointments. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access. For example, the provider had been actively involved in developing the primary care network (PCN) access plan. The provider was actively working to obtain a greater understanding of the current position in relation to access. They were part way through completion of the ‘General Practice Improvement programme (GPIP). This included auditing the appointment system on a regular basis to try to identify inappropriate use of appointments, as well as appointment utilisation with a range of clinicians. This was with the aim to understand demand and make changes and improve access. It was clear throughout the assessment process that improving access and patient experience was a priority for the provider. The leadership team explained how they had continuously monitored and reviewed data relating to access and had made improvements that they believed would have the biggest impact for their patients.

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.