Wolverley 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 a total of 7 quality statements from this key question. Recent National GP Patient Survey results showed that patients experience with accessing the practice was in line or above the local and national averages. We found staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements. Staff were responsive to patients’ individual needs and took time to listen to people. We saw examples of how staff and leaders put patients at the centre of their care and treatment.

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.

Patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They were given advice to understand their condition, care and treatment options. Patients told us they felt included and supported in decision about their care.

Staff were responsive to patients’ individual needs. We saw examples of how staff and leaders put patients at the centre of their care and treatment. They demonstrated a good understanding of their patients and had developed the service in response to those needs.

Staff understood the health social care needs of their local community and patient population. Staff recognised the importance of ensuring there is continuity in people’s care and treatment. For example, leaders told us if a patient called the practice for an appointment and they had recently seen them, they would take the appointment. The practice delivered care that was flexible and joined up.

We received no concerns from partners regarding the care provision, integration and continuity of this practice.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of their patients. Patients care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. For example, the practice made adjustments for people with a learning disability by providing longer appointments. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment and patients could pre-book appointments with their preferred clinician.

Results from the national GP patient survey showed that 99% of people said they felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This was better than the local and national averages.

Staff and leaders told us they provided information that was tailored to individual needs. They highlighted on patients record if they had any communication or accessibility need. This was usually gathered at registration but could be updated when appropriate.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard and staff had completed training. There were arrangements in place to ensure patients individual needs were met. For example, they made reasonable adjustments for people with a disability and provided access to interpreters for people who don’t speak English as a first language and for people who use British Sign Language. The practice website included accessible online tools such as translation.

Patients could provide feedback through a variety of methods. None of the feedback we received highlighted any concerns with patients’ ability to provide feedback or complain.

Staff and leaders told us patient feedback was regularly reviewed, acted on and discussed in team meetings to improve the service. Staff were aware of the practice’s complaints procedure and told us they would advise patients on how to raise a complaint if appropriate.

The practice had a complaints policy in place, and information on how to complain was readily available at the practice. People could complain in person, by telephone, email or letter. There were regular practice meetings where complaints were a standing agenda to discuss shared learning and actions for improvement. The practice had received one complaint since January 2023, and we saw evidence this was handled appropriately.

Results from the national GP survey showed that 90.2% of people said they found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone. 95.2% of people responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice. 99% of people felt they waited the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment. These were all above both the local and national averages.

Leaders and staff spoke positively about the appointment system and the improvement to patients accessing appointments. They recognised the importance of continuing to encourage patients to use the NHS app and had put posters up in reception to support this. Staff we spoke to provided examples of how they have engaged with patients to support them with using the NHS app.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, and in person by visiting the practice. The practice offered a range of appointment types including face-to-face, telephone, home visits and online consultations. The practice had engaged in the General Practice Improvement Programme (GPIP) and had made changes to further improve access. The practice used a cloud-based telephony system to allow them to monitor calls. All patients who called the practice were given a telephone call on the day by a GP who then offered them a same day face to face appointment if required. Patients could also book non urgent routine appointments within a 2-week time frame. When the practice was closed, patients were directed to access support, treatment and advice from the NHS 111 service or emergency services.

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

Staff and leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes.

The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination. The practice had processes to ensure people could register including those no fixed abode such as homeless people.

We did not receive any patient feedback which directly related to planning for the future. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding planning for the future.

Staff supported people to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care. Leaders told us they worked with other organisations and attended multidisciplinary team meetings to share information about helping people plan for the future.

The practice 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). We reviewed five patients Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and found they were made in line with relevant legislation and were appropriate.