The Oval Practice

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 reviewed 1 quality statement in the Responsive key question – Equity in experiences and outcomes . The scores for the other quality statements are based on the previous rating for this key question. The practice understood the needs of its population and tailored services in response to those needs. For example, the practice targeted patients to have better diabetes management, optimising medication to achieve better control of HbA1c levels. Patients were able to book appointments in a number of ways. Patients could attend the practice and book at the reception desk, and via telephone. The results of the most recent GP Patient Survey showed the practice performance was above the national averages for 3 of the indicators measured. The most significant was the ease of getting through to the GP practice.

This service scored 11 (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.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Results from the national patient survey showed positive results. Patient feedback from the national patient survey showed that 74.8% of patients were positive to the overall experience of making an appointment. The national average was 71.3%. The national patient survey showed 85% of patients responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone. The national average was 49.6%. The national patient survey showed 66.7% of patients were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment times. The national average was 52.8%. The national patient survey showed 59.6% of patients responded they were satisfied with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered. The national average was 72%.

The practice demonstrated they had a clear understanding of the practice population. In the last 12 months to assist with accommodating the practice population the practice proactively recruited team members who were reflective of the local population. The practice understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs, for example the practice feedback they had effectively implemented a diabetes management programme, as diabetes was a prevalent concern in their locality. They used their 8 key care processes and focused on optimising medication to achieve better control of HbA1c levels. The aim being getting more patients to be within the target range of 53-58mmol/mol. Previously, despite specialist diabetes input, only 40% of patients were within this range. Through the practice collaborative approach involving receptionists, nurses, pharmacists, care coordinators, and GPs, they had significantly improved this figure to 63%. Staff showed a clear understanding of potential barriers to care including patients with a hearing or visual impairment or for homeless patients. In response the practice provided access to interpreters, they recruited bilingual staff and had a hearing loop.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs, the practice understood the importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care this was reflected in the services provided. We saw the practice kept a register of vulnerable patients, this included housebound, learning disabilities, dementia, military veterans, and severely frail patients. All of these patients were given preferential treatment, such as same-day appointments whenever feasible, double appointment slots, and priority processing for prescription requests. Parents or guardians calling with concerns about a young child were offered a same day appointment when necessary. The practice offered a range of appointment types to suit different needs (e.g. face to face, telephone, online). Patients were able to make appointments in a way which met their needs. At the time of the inspection the practice did not have a website, however they were working on getting one in place. The national GP patient survey showed that 85% of patients responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their practice on the phone this was significantly above the national average of 49.6%. The practice provided a number of different support mechanisms for patients where needed. Patient records were detailed and gave a good overview of patient's requirements. This included interpretation services, or additional time needed. There were processes in place to allow a clinicians to refer patients to the practice patient coordinator who was pivotal in referring patients to a social prescriber who in turn could connect patients with resources such as exercise equipment, food banks, and support for housing and financial improvements.

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.