Barbourne Health 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

The responsive key question remains rated as good. One quality statement, Equity in Access, was included in this assessment. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. For example the practice had a carers champion who monitored the registrations, lists and attended carers updates and groups.

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 understood the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve. The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as the GP patient survey, Friends and Family Test, complaints, compliments and by informal feedback from patients. We found leaders had gathered feedback, responded to it and were continuously making improvements. We heard about changes they had made including changes to staffing on times of the day identified as having access pressures, care navigation training for reception staff, cloud telephony system and information/education for patients on the appointment system. The practice told us they had made changes to the waiting areas including a new patient check in system. We saw evidence that the number of available clinician appointments offered each week was suitable for the population need. Patient who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. The practice told us they had provided support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example they had a carers champion who monitored registrations and lists and attended carers updates and groups. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode. The practice had registered as a Safe Surgery (following NHS guidance to help ensure everyone in their community can access healthcare they are entitled to). Leaders told us the practice were the highest achieve with the Worcester primary care network practice group for learning disability reviews. The practice told us staff had undertaken training on learning disability and autism.

The National GP patient survey (GPPS) data was lower than the national average but showed no statistical difference. The practice were aware of this and had made changes to address this. The practice analysed Friends and Family Survey to drive improvement. Data from the practice’s Friends and Family Survey provided consistently positive feedback abut the quality of the service provided. For example, 535 patients completed the Friends and Family Test in January 2024 and February 2024. 92% said their experience was good or very good (England average = 91%). We saw examples of positive feedback about professional, friendly and caring staff. There was evidence of active and positive interaction with the patient participation group (PPG). The group met with staff from the practice bi-monthly and were consulted for improvements to the practice. For example, they worked with a local free magazine aiming to publish a monthly article to educate and reach cohorts of patients who are digitally challenged.

The practice had made improvements to their systems to address the issues around access. The practice introduced a cloud telephony system which enabled them to monitor the availability of appointments, analyse calls and arrange call backs. The system allowed them to generate data, such as peak times calls, so that staff could be allocated appropriately. For example, they increased the availability of staff in the morning to accommodate the phone waiting times. Staff told us the appointment system was reviewed regularly. Patients could access clinicians by face to face appointments, telephone appointments and home visits where required. Outside of these times, patients were advised to contact NHS 111 for out of hours appointments. Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, walking in and could also submit medical or admin requests online via the practice website. The practice had made changes to their website to promote the use of their online consultation services to improve access. Patients were offered a choice of appointments, and any urgent calls were referred to the duty doctor at the practice. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff had completed care navigation training and the practice had a sign-positing triage system for staff to follow. The practice had also provided training for the reception team to educate patients about the role of the Primary Care Network Additional Roles in facilitating patients clinical care in General Practice. Patients had access to an interpretation service for patients whom English was not their first language or had other communication needs. The patient record system was used to alert staff to any access requirement the patient had to help enable effective communication with the patient. Patients who were under safeguarding were also flagged on the system for prioritisation for access.

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.