Kidderminster 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 found staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements. Staff took time to listen to people and ensure they engaged in all aspects of their treatment. Leaders ensured patients had access to appointments when they needed them and had additional support in place for vulnerable patients to ensure all patients had access to good outcomes when attending appointments where appropriate. Staff were kind and compassionate when supporting people to plan for the future.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We spoke with members of the patient participation group and reviewed online feedback. Patients felt included in decisions about their care. They were treated as individuals by all staff members and said their care was person centred. Patients said staff were inclusive in the way they communicated and provided support. In the national GP patient survey 94% of patients said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last GP appointment. This was slightly above the 91% national average.

Staff were responsive to patients’ individual needs. They listened to patients and had the skills to signpost patients to other services if this was needed. This gave patients more timely access to external support such as services providing help to people with drug or alcohol related concerns. Leaders and staff had initiatives in place to improve patients experience of using the practice. This included providing a range of clinics to suit the needs of patients. For example, they had held clinics on Saturdays and opened to 8pm two evenings each week for people who worked. Leaders had a reasonable adjustment digital flag policy to ensure it was indicated on the records when patients needed adjustments to access the service.

Staff understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local community and patient population. Care and treatment were delivered in a way to meet those needs and the practice worked in a co-ordinated way with external services. For example, staff worked with local drug and alcohol services and the prison and probation service to ensure patients received the right support and treatment when they needed it. GPs and staff completed home visits out of hours to ensure patients had followed advice such as attending the local accident and emergency department following a GP appointment.

Partners were positive about the practice. They said leaders and staff were responsive in supporting vulnerable patients and ensuring care and treatment was provided in a timely and person-centred way.

Information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required. The practice had clear referral policies and procedures in place to ensure patient care was joined-up, flexible and supported patient choice and continuity. They were part of a local partnership including four other GP practices which enabled them to share clinics and good practice through regular meetings. The practice offered patients continuity booking where they could select to see the same GP for follow up appointments.

Patients received information in a number of ways. This included direct information from GPs and staff, via the website and in the waiting area. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) told us information was accessible and available in a range of formats. They supported the practice by spending time in the reception area to offer support to patients with accessibility issues.

Leaders and staff said information was provided in line with the Accessible Information Standards. These set out a consistent approach to identifying, recording, flagging, sharing, and meeting the information and communication support needs of patients, service users, carers and parents with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss. Staff were committed to ensuring all patients had access to the right treatment. For example, people with learning disabilities were offered review appointments with the nurse and then with the GP straight afterwards to avoid anxiety about coming to the practice.

Leaders ensured information was tailored to the individual needs of patients. They had policies and procedures in place to support this. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, access to interpreters for patients who do not speak English or who used British Sign Language. Information about patients was collected and shared in line with the current General Data Protection Regulation.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) were fully involved in supporting the practice. They offered coffee mornings for patients and gathered feedback. The PPG fed back concerns to the practice manager and found these were acted upon. For example, there was an issue with access to the disabled toilet. As soon as this was raised the issue was promptly sorted.

Leaders told us that complaints were regularly reviewed and discussed in practice meetings to share learning. The practice had received 55 complaints in the last 12 months and there was evidence that appropriate action was taken, and patients were responded to in a timely way. Staff supported people who wished to make a complaint and followed these up with the practice manager.

Leaders had a complaints and compliments policy in place. Complaints were used to improve the quality of care. Leaders held regular practice meetings and wider meetings within their network where learning from complaints was shared. Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person, by telephone, via email or letter.

Patients were positive about access to the GP practice. Patient feedback as a result of the National GP Patient Survey was positive with regards to access to the practice. The survey showed 61% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone which was above the national average of 50%. The latest survey results showed 74% of patients found it easy to contact the GP practice using the practice website which was above the national average of 48% and 79% of patients felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment which was above the national average of 66%. Patients said they had no issues with seeing any clinician for an urgent appointment and could choose who to see for more routine appointments if they had a long-term medical condition.

Leaders and staff spoke positively about the change to the way appointments were accessed. It gave them more time to focus on patient care and treatment. They had introduced additional clinics and many of these were available outside of the normal practice hours. The practice provided support to veterans. They invited them to regular coffee mornings where they had access to information and support as well as medical information. Staff and volunteers from the PPG offered support with reading and writing letters and signposting to other services including advocacy, social prescribing, and bereavement counselling. These coffee mornings were open to veterans who were registered with the practice and those in the local community. The practice has a notice board in reception which veterans could access during opening hours for information.

The practice used a total triage approach to booking appointments. This had improved the long queues for people phoning in to the practice. Reception staff supported people to complete the booking forms by taking information over the phone for those who could not access the booking form online and duty doctors had protected time for managing and responding to all requests for appointments. Staff actively sought out ways to engage patients. For example, nurses visited parents of children who had missed their childhood immunisations to discuss the reasons for this. Parents were also offered an appointment with a GP to discuss their concerns about immunisation so reassurance could be provided.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. 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. For example, Staff told us they registered people who were homeless and allowed them to use the practice address for post. If a homeless person came in for an appointment, they were able to wait while their request was triaged so they could be seen promptly. The practice had a GP with a specific interest in this area which helped to ensure patients had the same access as anyone else. 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.

Patients felt listened to and cared for. Patients with long term health conditions were able to see the same GP for each appointment which gave continuity of care which they liked and appreciated. They told us the practice had GPs with specialist interests so they could have appointments with someone who had a higher level of knowledge about their health condition.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about and plan their future care. Staff spoke with kindness and compassion about how the information for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms was gathered. They documented decisions made by patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation on these ReSPECT forms and patient records and ensured these were regularly reviewed and updated.

Leaders had systems and processes in place to ensure patients who may be approaching the end of their life were identified (including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable). This information was shared with other services and staff to ensure patients received a joined-up approach to care and treatment.