Dr Abiodun Obisesan

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. A series of embedded and comprehensive audits regarding access were used to drive improvement at the practice. The practice identified and allocated resources as required to improve inequalities and support equity of access.

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 GP patient survey (GPPS) data from 1 January to 31 March 2023 regarding access indicators found the practice had lower percentages than the England averages but was deemed to be within a comparable range. The practice had compiled a comprehensive GPPS action plan where they monitored trends across time, highlighted increases and decline in satisfaction, analysed this and took action to improve. We found the practice took account of patient feedback and made changes accordingly. For example, the practice told us they had recruited additional clinical staff to increase access to GP appointments; had upgraded their telephone system to cloud-based telephony with a call-back request service and offered online medication reviews with a clinical pharmacist for patients who didn’t have time to go into the practice. The practice received 308 friends and family responses in January 2024. Of these responses, 6 were poor, 4 were very poor, 2 did not know, 12 were neither good nor poor, 31 were good and 253 were very good.

Patient appointments were available either online, face to face, by telephone, or as a home visit. Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, walking in and could also submit medical or admin requests online via the practice website. Patients could book routine appointments in advance and same-day appointments were available. The practice also made use of a text message service to send and receive information from patients and an online software system to communicate with patients. The practice was open Monday to Friday from 8am – 6.30pm with extended access from 6.30pm – 8pm and 9am – 5pm on Saturday. Appointments were available from 8am – 8pm Monday to Friday and 9am – 5pm on Saturday. These appointments included those that were enhanced access. The practice could book these appointments directly for patients. The practice offered access to a variety of clinical staff for example GPs, advanced nurse practitioners, a physicians’ associate, clinical pharmacist, paramedic and other associated clinical staff. The practice was supported by a practice manager and an administration team. The practice had arrangements for prioritising patients. Emergency on the day appointments were available and patients with urgent need were seen within 24 hours. Reception staff had completed care navigation training or were booked to undertake this. The reception team were supported by a duty doctor. The practice conducted audits of the triage process to ensure appointments were appropriate and made improvements as required. The practice provided access to an interpretation service for patients who did not have English language as a first language and a sign language service for patients who required it. The patient record system was used to alert staff to any access requirements to help enable effective communication with the patient. Capacity and demand was subject to daily review and formal audits of appointments and calls were undertaken.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs. The practice told us they had recently installed a cloud based telephony system and had begun to audit the volume of incoming calls, calls answered and dropped calls. They told us that inbound calls were monitored on a dashboard and they adjusted the number of reception staff answering calls during busy periods. Patients could access appointments by phone, online and by visiting the practice. The practice used a sign-posting triage system where reception staff would ask the patient for enough information to make a decision regarding which clinician was appropriate for them to see. Reception staff received sign-posting training and this was cascaded to other members of the staff team. Patients were given the option of a face to face or remote appointment. A duty doctor was available each day to support the triage team. Patients who requested an emergency appointment were seen the same day at the practice where possible or within 24 hours. Children with urgent needs were seen the same day. A number of appointments were embargoed to facilitate additional urgent on the day appointments were filled. The practice told us they also had access to extended access appointments from 6.30pm – 8pm Monday to Friday and on a Saturday from 9am – 5pm. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. The range of options included by telephone, by visiting the practice, and online. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode. Documents reviewed showed that clinical and non-clinical staff had completed training in learning disability and autism.

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.