• Doctor
  • GP practice

Hamdon Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Matts Lane, Stoke-sub-hamdon, TA14 6QE (01935) 822236

Provided and run by:
Symphony Healthcare Services Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Report from 26 February 2024 assessment

On this page

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 April 2024

We carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive at Hamdon Medical Centre on the 20th February 2024. Overall, the practice is rated as good. Following this assessment, the key question of responsive remains rated as good. People that use the service were able to book appointments at this practice by various means such as by telephone, visit to the practice and electronically through the ask my GP application. Results from the Friends & Family Feedback survey carried out by the practice indicated that people that use the service had poor experiences with the ask myGP electronic appointment booking platform. There were processes in place to support people from various backgrounds to access the practice. People that wanted to register with the practice were able to register through various ways such as electronically, in person and by telephone. Staff at the practice acknowledged that some people that use the service found access to this service a challenge. As a result the practice regularly and proactively reviewed access in order to make further improvements. The practice worked alongside other GP services within the local area and offered additional access out of the regular opening hours

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.

Person-centred Care

Score: 3

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.

Care provision, Integration and continuity

Score: 3

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.

Providing Information

Score: 3

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

Listening to and involving people

Score: 3

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.

Equity in access

Score: 3

People that use the service were able to book appointments at this practice by various means such as by telephone, visit to the practice and electronically through the ask my GP application. Results from the Friends & Family Feedback survey carried out by the practice indicated that people that use the service experienced challenges with the ask myGP electronic appointment booking platform. 33% of the respondents had a poor or very poor experience when they used the ask myGP platform. Some of the challenges that people experienced included late responses to their enquiries. People that use the service also experienced long waiting times when they telephoned the practice to book appointments. However people’s experiences improved once they got through to staff as 79% of respondents in the GP patient survey found the reception staff to be helpful.

There were processes in place to support people to access the practice. People that wanted to register with the practice were able to register with the practice by completing an online form. There was the option of completing a paper form for those that were not able to access the online process. An online tool was available for people to check whether they were within the catchment area for this practice. Homeless people were able to register with the practice without the need to provide proof of address. People living near the practice for a period not exceeding three months were able to register as temporary patients. The practice communicated with patients using various means of communication such as email, letter, and telephone. There was a website which provided information to patients about the practice. People using the practice were able to access this information in accessible format on request. This practice had audio induction loops to assist people with hearing impairment. Where necessary, the practice was able to arrange for interpreter services such as British Sign Language. People with learning disabilities were offered support through a care coordinator. The support from the care coordinator ensured that they were offered more flexible appointments in terms of time, length of appointment and location of appointment.

Staff at the practice acknowledged that some people that use the service found access to this service a challenge. This was reflected in some of the feedback from the patient feedback which showed that more people were experiencing poor or very poor experiences compared to previously. However, the practice worked alongside other GP services within the local area and offered additional access out of the regular opening hours. This provided additional routine appointments in the evenings during the week. During the flu season the practice also offered Saturday morning clinics on an adhoc basis. The practice utilised the feedback to help improve the experiences of the people that used the service. For example, the health coach at the practice was able to directly utilise patient feedback in improving experiences for people that required health coaching. There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) which enabled direct engagement between the patient group and the practice. Minutes from the meetings were accessible through the website. The practice was purpose built and accessible by wheelchair users. Guide dogs were allowed within the practice to ensure that people with visual impairments were able to access the service. There were bariatric seats in place to cater for bariatric patients.

Equity in experiences and outcomes

Score: 3

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.

Planning for the future

Score: 3

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.