Cranford 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 statement from this key question. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements.

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.

People we spoke to had no concerns relating to person-centred care.

Staff told us how they treated people as individuals and with respect. They told us they got to know people and their needs during regular appointments, and they responded appropriately. Staff told us they provided personalised care to older people through tailored care plans. They also provided longer appointments for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes.

Staff told us that care provision extended to a wider Primary Care Network (PCN) team including first contact physiotherapists, a dietician, physician associates, social prescribers, clinical pharmacists and a mental health nurse. There was a good mix of healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs.

Partners told us the service had a consistent presence at local multi-disciplinary meetings in the community. They told us this was a valuable way to share information to understand the diverse health and care needs of the people in the community to ensure care is joined-up.

The service considered the importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care when delivering care and treatment. Systems and processes were in place to support people with a multi-disciplinary approach.

People knew what the next step would be after contacting the service. They understood the clinical triage system and information was available for understanding the online system.

Staff told us they provided people with information in a way that helped them to understand their health needs, and any advice given. They also supported people and their carers when needed to find further information and access community and advocacy services.

There was a system in place for staff to access interpretation services to support people who did not have English as a first language. Reasonable adjustments were in place for people with a hearing impairment. Following the assessment, the practice sent us an updated policy which actively discouraged the use of relatives as translators.

The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them was in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated the healthcare professional involved them in decisions about care and treatment was in line with England averages.

Staff were able to explain the importance of listening to people during their appointment to establish their needs. They told us complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared in team meetings.

Patient feedback was collated, reviewed, and acted on to improve service and culture. Action plans had been drawn up in response to patient surveys. Information about how to complain was readily available. Complaints were listened to and acted upon to improve the quality of care.

The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment was in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone was in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment times was in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who were satisfied with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered was in line with England averages.

Leaders explained how they understood the needs of the local population and had developed the service in response. Staff told us they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, a clinical pharmacist carried out medicines reviews where appropriate monitoring had taken place. Leaders told us they were aware of the challenges to access and had acted to improve access.

The practice had an up-to-date policy for managing access and patient demand with principles in line with the Equality Act. The practice had adopted a ‘total triage system’. People could provide information on their needs by telephone or in person. They were then triaged by senior clinical staff and offered a same day appointment, or a routine appointment within two weeks. People could also request an appointment online which was booked onto the practice’s appointment system by a PCN team and reviewed by the lead GP. Evening and weekend appointments were available through the PCN.

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. 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. The practice had undertaken an access audit to ensure equity of access for disabled people.

People we spoke to had no concerns relating to their future care.

Staff told us how they planned for people’s future care including advanced care planning and how they coordinated end of life care.

Peoples care plans documented do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and families / carers had been involved in decisions where a person lacked capacity to make them independently.