Dr Vasanth and Partners

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 carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive at Dr Vasanth on the 11 March 2024. Overall, the practice is rated as good. Following this assessment, the key question of responsive remains rated as good. The assessment was carried out to understand people’s experiences in accessing GP services. We know demand for GP appointments remains exceptionally high with more appointments being requested than ever. Despite this increase in demand, we recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in, through their staff, in ensuring that they provide safe, quality care to the people that use their services. We recognise that due to the increase in demand access to services remains a concern for the public. We carried out the assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet increased demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. The assessment of the quality statement equity of access includes looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

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 latest GP patient survey results for this practice were published in July 2023. The results indicated that the provider was performing in line or above local and national averages. 83% of the patients had a good overall experience at this GP practice compared to the national average of 71%. The survey results also showed that 75% of the patients found it easy to access this practice by phone. This was higher than the national average which was 50%. The surgery obtained feedback from patients through the Friends and Family Test and published related data on their website. This data showed positive feedback of 98% and 93% for the months of January and February 2024 respectively. The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) group that met regularly and provided direct feedback to the practice. Some of the feedback from the PPG focused on challenges with patient parking at the surgery and long waiting times. The practice had a complaints procedure with a named person responsible for handling related enquiries. There were clear procedures and details on how complaints were escalated to other services such as the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS), NHS England or the Health Service Ombudsman.

Staff were aware that patients were waiting for long periods of time in the waiting area before they were seen. The practice had an above average population of people aged 65 and above registered with the practice. 23% of the patients were aged 65 years or above compared to the national average of 17%. Some of these patients presented with more needs requiring longer appointment times. The practice staff reviewed all forms of feedback including complaints to help with teamwide learning. Feedback was obtained through various sources such GP patient survey, the Friends and Family Test and internal surveys. There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) which met regularly. The PPG was involved in sharing direct feedback to the practice and offered suggestions on how the service could improve.

The practice had a GP navigation triaging process in place. The process involved input from a GP and this ensured that appointments were booked and allocated to the most appropriate clinician within the practice. At this service, patients were also able to access services of other health professionals such as mental health nurse, pharmacy technician, mental health psychologist, first contact physiotherapists and care coordinators. People were able to access the practice via email, telephone, or face to face. Patients were supported to access interpreter services where needed. People with learning disabilities were given priority slots and longer appointment times to ensure adequate time to discuss their needs. People from vulnerable groups such as the homeless and those living with mental health conditions were given more flexibility in accessing the service. This ensured that they could access timely support from the practice which helped to prevent avoidable hospital admissions. The service opened during weekdays from 8:30am to 6:30pm and was closed during weekends and bank holidays. Evening telephone appointments were accessible between 7:00pm and 8:00pm at this practice. Out of hours arrangements were in place through the local GP Alliance and local walk-in centre.

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.