Graham Road Surgery

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 quality statements in the responsive key question. Our rating for this key question is now good. Staff treat people equally and without discrimination. There was a process in place to clinically review requests for appointments which were allocated based on urgency. The practice understood their patient population. They identified and made changes to improve their service where required.

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 received no specific feedback in this area.

Staff treated people as individuals and with respect. Staff got to know people during regular appointments and were able to offer care and treatment with a person-centred approach.

Staff had allocated roles linking to their specialist interests or their experience and training. For example, the diabetes nurse had training and extensive experience in diabetic management and good knowledge of how other local services support with this. Services within the practice worked together to offer a joined-up approach. Patients had a named GP who supported them in whatever setting they lived.

Patients living in a care home setting had a named clinician which helped with the continuity of care. Some partners told us they had a good working relationship with the practice. One partner stated, ‘GPs are very proactive and supportive as needed’. However, some other feedback indicated practice staff did not have the specific skills and training to work with people with learning disabilities stating ‘staff…do not seem to understand about learning disabilities’.

The importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care was reflected in the services provided. There were systems and processes in place to support patients with a multi-disciplinary approach. During our assessment, we identified not all staff had completed mandatory training for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Following our assessment, the practice was proactive in addressing this and provided assurance that staff had now completed this training.

People knew what the next step would be after contacting the service.

Staff communicated with patients in a way that helped them to understand their care, treatment and condition, and any advice given. Patients and their carers were supported by staff to find further information and access community and advocacy services.

Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. The practice website contained information about accessibility for example, how to request a large print or easy read document or if you a British Sign Language interpreter was required. The website also listed the support available to carers and encouraged patients to tell the practice if they were carers.

People reported the healthcare professionals listened to them. People were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of the importance of listening to people’s during their appointment. They helped patients to be involved in decisions about care and treatment. Complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared amongst staff to drive continuous improvement.

Patient views were acted on to improve services and culture. An action plan had been created in response to the 2023 National GP patient Survey. Feedback from the online booking system was reviewed and learning identified. Information about how to complain was readily available. Complaints were listened and responded to and used to improve the quality of care.

People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. However, people could not always get an appointment when they needed one and found access by phone and online difficult: “the new system is not helpful if you haven’t got access to a computer and phoning can be difficult, this can be very hard for the elderly”.

Leaders understood the needs of the local population and had developed services in response. Staff explained they provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, there was a mental health team made up of a mental health nurse and support workers. Leaders told us they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve access.

The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients and staff had guidance to follow. The online appointment and medical advice system is now open throughout the day to free up phone access for those that are unable to use the online system. There was information available for patients to support them to understand how to access services (including on websites and telephone messages). Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours including 1 Saturday a month.

feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider and to CCQ was varied. Some people’s experience was positive however, some people with mental health needs did not feel they got the right support at the right time to support them.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us they understood the local patient population and the difficulties they may encounter.

We saw no evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions. There was an equality, diversity and inclusion policy. A hearing loop supported hearing impaired patients. There was a process to register vulnerable people, including those of no fixed abode.

People had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss supporting patients receiving end of life care. Staff had experience of palliative care to enable them to support patients compassionately.

Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made in line with relevant legislation, were appropriate and recorded clearly. People’s wishes were recorded on their patient record which were available to local health providers who may need to access them. End of life care was delivered in a coordinated way which took into account the needs of those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.