The Andover Health Centre Medical Practice

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 and inspected against two quality statements, Equity in experience & outcomes and Equity in access. During our assessment, we found evidence that the practice sought, managed and responded to patient feedback. The practice worked actively with their Patient Participation Group (PPG) to ensure patient voice was acted upon.

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.

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

The practice had actively managed, promoted and responded to feedback by people who used the service within the last 12 months. People could leave feedback via NHS choices and via the Friends and Family test (FFT). The practice had received 3592 forms of feedback in the last 12 months via these methods. We were provided with actions taken in response to feedback through appointment model audits completed via engagement questionnaires and surveys. For example, the practice evaluated the way people could access services from same day triage to partial pre-bookable appointments, which included a series of surveys of people’s experience. In particular, we identified that the practice had carried out a survey of 1000 people based on people’s preferences to accessibility and service experience. The practice received 230 responses which was reviewed to inform changes to the appointment model.

Leaders told us that the practice had focused to address workforce challenges including wider clinical support through the primary care network (PCN) to improve access arrangements for people using the service and via feedback from the Patient Participation Group (PPG). Staff told us that they were a 'Teenage-friendly' practice assuring teenagers of confidentiality and providing support in relation to sexual health, drug and alcohol problems and self-harm. Leaders told us that there was an urgent community response team who worked in conjunction with the practice to visit vulnerable and elderly people at home to reduce hospital admissions.

The practice had an active PPG, which met with key staff members at the practice, quarterly. Areas discussed included, access to community services; staffing capacity; feedback from people who used the service and practice website improvements. At this assessment, we obtained feedback from PPG members who highlighted that there had been active engagement in seeking responses from people to the development of the new health centre, accessibility to both the premises and healthcare services through the appointment system. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard. We saw examples where the practice had met the needs of vulnerable patient groups and removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place, access to interpreters was available and information and supporting material in large print and braille. The practice had a bereaved patients process in place where patients were invited for supportive appointments in relation with their loved one with the GP. People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

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.