All Saints Medical Centre PMS

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 found the service was providing responsive services because the provider had used patient feedback to drive improvement. Feedback from patients about the service was mostly positive, the provider had responded to negative reviews in an attempt to address concerns. The provider had taken action to improve access. Services were designed to make them accessible for people most likely to have difficulty accessing care.

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.

Staff told us they had taken steps to reduce the number of patients who did not attend (DNA) their appointments in an attempt to provide more appointments for patients. For example information was sent to all patients encouraging them to alert the practice via telephone or the mobile app if they could no longer attend their appointment. The practice also encouraged bookings for the same day or next day to reduce DNA rates. There were pre-bookable appointments available but these were limited and patients with pre-booked appointments received a text message reminder the day before their appointment. Staff had been trained to triage requests for appointments to ensure patients were seen by the most appropriate member of staff. Requests for home visits were triaged by GPs.

Appointments could be made via the telephone, online or in person. Urgent appointments could be made on the same day and the practice aimed to see all requests for routine appointments within 10 days. The practice was open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Extended access appointments were available on Tuesdays from 6.30pm to 8pm. Out of hours care was provided by NHS 111. The practice utilised a service to engage and communicate with patients who were hard of hearing. The service worked through a relay assistant intermediary who would type a voice message from the sender (i.e. the practice) and convert this into a typed format to send to the patient who was hard of hearing. Conversely, they would relay any typed messages from the hard of hearing patient and relay this into spoken format for the recipient (i.e. the practice).

The national GP patient survey showed patient satisfaction levels regarding access to the practice via telephone was in line with the national average. Patient satisfaction was slightly lower than average regarding the practice’s appointment times, the appointments offered and the overall experience of making an appointment. There were 2 reviews on the NHS website, 1 was positive about the service and 1 was negative. Positive comments referred to professional staff, negative comments referred to difficulty accessing temporary services. The practice had responded to both comments and signposted patients to other organisations. There were 6 comments received directly be CQC, these were all positive about the service. Comments referred to helpful, informative, understanding staff. We were also told it was easy to access appointments. Patients spoke to us directly about the practice. Feedback about access to appointments was positive, patients told us it was easy to access appointments when they needed them. We heard appointments could be made in ways that suited individual needs.

The practice had carried out analysis of the local population and designed systems to ensure patients could access care in ways which suited them. For example, appointments in the afternoon could be reserved to ensure there was capacity for people contacting the practice later in the day. There was information available on how to make a complaint on the practice website. Patients could complain online or in person. We saw 8 complaints had been recorded in the last 12 months. However, there was limited details on the learning from these complaints. We saw that complaints were a standard agenda item for practice meetings, but we did not see examples of learning being shared with practice staff during these meetings. The layout of the practice meant that all areas were accessible to people using wheelchairs or mobility scooters. At the time of the site visit, the practice lift was out of order. However, the practice advised that any patients with mobility issues were able to receive the care and treatment they required in a ground floor clinical room. Toilets were accessible to people with limited mobility and there were designated parking spaces.

Staff told us patients living in vulnerable circumstances, such as homeless people and asylum seekers, could register with the practice without proof of address. Extended appointments were available should patients request or require them, for example for patients requiring translation services or those with a learning disability. Patients were asked during the registration process whether they had caring responsibilities. Carers were offered flu vaccinations and asked if they required additional support from the practice. The practice had processes in place to ensure patients who were hard of hearing could access services. For example, there was a hearing loop on reception and there was a system where information could be sent in text message format.

Feedback from patients was positive about their experiences of using the service. Patients told us they could make appointments in ways that suited their needs and they were given sufficient time to discuss concerns during consultations.

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.