Cookham 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

During the assessment we reviewed policies, spoke with staff, and undertook observations while on site. Our findings were: We received 1 piece of feedback from a patient that specifically referenced how they felt they had not experienced any lack of empathy or prejudice and the clinician involved in their care and treatment had shown understanding towards them. Staff and leaders were alert to the possibility that patients may face inequality of experience and outcomes and looked for opportunities to prevent this from happening. Where barriers to care existed, the practice acted to remove them. The practice tailored communication methods to meet the needs of patients. Leadership and management had oversight of complaints and the system provided actionable data. This meant if any complaints regarding inequalities or discrimination arose, they could be identified easily so action could be taken. Most staff were clear about the support the practice offered patients, however, there was an opportunity to improve the knowledge of all staff to ensure no patients experienced an inequality due to a lack of familiarity with processes.

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.

We asked the provider to share details of our Give Feedback on Care process with patients. We received 3 pieces of feedback during the assessment and reviewed submission dating back to June 2023. This included 12 further examples of people’s experiences. Of this, 14 pieces of feedback were not directly relevant to this quality statement. However, 1 patient explained a clinician had shown understanding towards them about their condition and had not shown any prejudice or lack of empathy towards them as a patient. It was not explained within the feedback why the clinician may have demonstrated those behaviours, however, this evidence had direct relevance to whether the patient felt they received an equal experience.

We spoke with staff and leaders at the practice about any examples they had of identifying patients most likely to experience inequality in their experience or outcome and how they had tailored the care, support, and treatment for those patients. We found the practice had received feedback from a patient with a visual impairment that there were inconsistencies when staff physically guided them within the practice. We heard how management responded by including a mandatory training module and a requirement to refresh the training to ensure any staff that did not guide a patient for a period did not forget the technique. Staff we spoke with gave this training as an example, which demonstrated it was an embedded process. We found many staff spoke confidently about the support they could offer patients such as a hearing loop for patients that were hearing impaired or waiting in a quiet room if a patient had a sensory need. This demonstrated how barriers to accessing care had been removed by the practice. For patients requiring interpretation or translation, the practice explained if this service was used there were no barriers or delays to care and treatment. It could be accessed immediately on a remote basis and if a patient preferred to have a face to face appointment accompanied by an interpreter, this would be arranged at the earliest opportunity. If the need was urgent adjustments would be made as necessary to ensure equality of care. However, some staff we spoke with were less confident about the support the practice could offer patients, for example when patients with no fixed abode wanted to register at the practice. This meant there was an opportunity to ensure all staff were confident about all the support offered by the practice.

We found the practice had systems and processes which supported them to identify examples where patients may face inequalities in experience or outcomes. Where these had been identified, the practice had responded. For example, we found: The practice provided appropriate and accessible methods of communication to ensure all patients' needs were met such as letters in an easy-read format, text messages and telephone recalls. The complaints log assigned themes to complaints which meant the practice was able to tell us with confidence that none had been received related to discrimination or inequal treatment. The practice offered separate and specific clinics for patients with learning disabilities or serious mental illnesses. These clinics were designed to have more time and, familiar clinicians and clinical rooms to support the patient to be comfortable and achieve the best outcome from the appointment. The practice explained they had supported a patient with a visual impairment by allowing them to communicate via email rather than using the online consultation system. The benefit of this was that the patient could use text to speech technology whereas they could not do this in the online consultation system. Overall we were assured the practice had systems and processes to promote equality of experience for patients. We also found the practice proactively looked for opportunities to address barriers to improve patients’ experiences and, acted on information or feedback which suggested further improvement could be made.

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.