Dr Jerome Kaine Ikwueke Also known as Grove Road 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

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 practice leadership team understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs. The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as the GP patient survey, friends and family, internal surveys, complaints and via informal feedback from patients. The practice had reviewed and were actively responding to the GP patient survey results to improve patient experience. For example during the inspection, the practice highlighted that they were concerned to see that only 46% of patients said they usually get to speak to their preferred GP. The practice reviewed this and understood this was because two GP's had the same surname and sometimes the incorrect GP would be booked for the patient. To rectify this all patients are now clearly being asked to clarify and confirm which GP with that surname they would like to see. The practice used an appropriate system where reception staff would ask the patient for enough information to make a decision regarding which clinician was appropriate for them to see, offering a range of face to face and remote consultations. We were told clinicians had regular oversight of the triage system and the on call duty doctor was available for support and advice. The practice provided us with data to confirm that by increasing their clinical team they were able to provide more appointments per week. The leaders promoted the use of their website and online consultation service to improve access. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers.

In the 2023 National GP Patient Survey, the four main indicators used to measure access were in line with or above the local and national averages. The practice showed a significant positive variation regarding access to the practice by phone. The remaining three indicators related to; overall experience of making an appointment; satisfaction with GP practice appointment time; and satisfaction with the appointments they were offered. All three were considered comparable and/or higher to the local and and national averages. The practice undertook ongoing audits to determine demand and capacity regarding their appointment system and continued to monitor the availability of appointments and staff. Patients could access appointments by phone, online and by visiting the practice. Patients were given the option of a face to face or remote appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. Patients had access to an interpretation service for patients whom English language was not their first language or had other communication needs. The practice website was also available in 14 different languages. The practice was accessible to patients with reduced mobility.

The practice was open 8am to 7.30pm Monday and Tuesday, and 8am to 6.30pm Wednesday to Friday. When the practice was closed, patients were advised to contact NHS 111. Patients could also book clinical appointments with the local extended hours service 6.30pm-8.30pm Monday to Friday, and 8am-8pm on weekends. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients with the most urgent needs, offering a balance of face to face and remote consulations. Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team, or signpost patients to other appropriate services and were supported to this by documented protocols and access to a duty doctor. Appointments were available with GPs, practice nurses, healthcare assistants, clinical pharmacist, pharmacy technician and mental health worker. There was also a social prescriber. At the time of the inspection the practice had an on going recruitment campaign for an advanced nurse prescriber and care-coordinator. Appointments were adjusted to take into account demand from patients around school holidays and bank holidays and the time of year. The practice held regular staff meetings to discuss any access related concerns. The practice was also actively involved with its patient participation group, we were told patient access was a standing item and discussed regularly.

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.