The Ruddington Medical Centre

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 looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remains the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. People told us they valued the professionalism and support they received during consultations, with doctors listening attentively and providing thorough care. Nurses were frequently highlighted for being compassionate, knowledgeable, and accommodating, especially for procedures like vaccinations and health checks.

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.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Although the majority of written information was in English, staff told us they had access to services for translating documents into appropriate languages, including into English. A hearing loop was also available. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. Feedback from representatives of 3 care homes, where the service provided care and treatment, was positive about how the GPs listened to them during the weekly ward rounds. We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service had recently introduced total triage for appointments and requests, whereby people submitted their request online. Staff reported the system was working well and had increased capacity. People were supported to complete the triage form if they contacted the service by telephone or in person. Although the majority of feedback from people about the new system was positive, some people expressed dissatisfaction and confusion around total triage and thought they were unable to phone the service to request appointments or support with the triage form. GPs were responsible for triaging the information. People were offered an appointment appropriate for their assessed need or directed to an alternative service. People who required routine appointments outside of the usual working hours had access to the Rushcliffe enhanced access service operated by the local primacy care network. These appointments were booked on behalf of people by the service. National GP Patient Survey data and the majority of feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the practice. Indicators showed 85% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice which was above the national average of 67%. In addition, 80% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, this was above the national average of 50%. Treatment rooms were available on the ground and first floors at the service and a lift was available to take people to the first floor.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The service had taken action following a complaint to ensure staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. For example, the out of hours services and other health care professionals involved in the care of this group of people.