Abbey 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 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. The practice recognised the challenges the practice faced in relation to access and had made changes to improve it.

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 reviewed the practice’s results in the 2023 national GP patient survey. This found when looking at patients’ response to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone the results was better than the national average. Patients’ response to the overall experience of making an appointment was in line with the national average. Feedback we received off patients on the day was mixed. Some people told us it was difficult to get an appointment, but others told us they had been able to get appointments on the day.

Leaders and staff demonstrated they were aware of the challenges the practice faced in relation to patient access and had acted to improve it. For example, they had recently updated their phone system to include better monitoring to improve access.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, walking in and could also submit medical or admin requests online via the practice website. Same day appointments were available, and patients could also book routine appointments in advance. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Where patients could be better supported by other local services, patients were advised on how to access these. The practice participated in audits to monitor their calls and used the information to make improvements. For example, to ease the early morning rush on the telephones, they implemented a change to allow the first two hours of the day to be dedicated to answering calls for appointments instead of general enquiries. This helped to ease the pressure on the reception staff and allow more patients to get through on the telephone to book an appointment.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. We observed one member of staff supporting a patient to make an appointment as they were unable to book it using the NHS app.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care. They made changes to address barriers to improve people’s experience. For example, they created a sensory room for people to use when they attended for an appointment.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. We observed several leaflets in the waiting area including information for veterans and leaflets in different languages from NHS England. There were paper based copies of care services available in the waiting room for patients to use.

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.