Brondesbury 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

On 5 February 2024 we carried out an announced assessment of the equity of access part of the responsive key question. In 2023 patient satisfaction as measured by the National GP Patient survey was lower than in previous years. Patients at Brondesbury Medical Centre who responded to the national survey indicated satisfaction that was generally in line with the with national average. Patient satisfaction with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered was below average. The practice had used feedback and other information to try to optimise patient access. Since the last inspection, the practice had made some significant changes to the way that appointments were allocated, to the information available for patients, and to systems and processes, which had improved the speed in which patients were seen and gave the practice much better data about what patients needed. These improvements were made after the last National GP Patient Survey results. Feedback collected by the practice was generally positive. We were contacted by 42 patients, 39 of whom were positive about the practice. The practice continued to monitor and make improvements.

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.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, and in person by visiting the practice. All patients were asked to complete a form giving some brief details about their concern – either online, in the practice (with staff help) or by giving details to staff over the phone. Patients could ask for administrative requests to be completed by filling in a form on the practice website. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, or as a home visit. Same day appointments were available and patients could also book routine appointments in advance. The practice was open 8am – 8pm Monday to Friday and 9am – 5pm on Saturday. Pre-booked appointments were also available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. GPs reviewed requests for appointments and allocated appointments with an appropriate GP or other clinical staff member. Where patients could be better supported by other local services, patients were advised as how to access these. Appointments were available with GPs, practice nurses, and healthcare assistants. There were also a paramedic, physician associates, and pharmacists. The practice carried out monthly audits to check how well appointment processes were working. We saw data that showed that since the practice made changes to how appointments were requested and allocated there had been a 30% reduction in calls to the practice and a reduction in the time patients waited from requesting an appointment and being seen (with 50% of patients seen on the same day and 96% in 1 week or less). The practice provided opportunities and support for different groups to overcome health inequalities, and was running two successful projects to identify and address health inequalities.

In 2023, patient satisfaction with all GP practices, as measured by the National GP Patient survey was lower than in previous years. Patients at Brondesbury Medical Centre who responded to the national survey indicated satisfaction that was generally in line with the with national average. For example, 52.9% of patients responded positively about how easy it was to get through to the practice by phone compared to a national average of 49.6%. Patient satisfaction with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered was below average at 51.3% compared to the national average of 72%. This was a fall in satisfaction from 2022. The practice had made significant changes to access and then carried out its own survey of 75 patients. 70.7% said was very easy or easy to get through to the practice by phone and 97.3% said they were satisfied with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered. Practice-based surveys can’t be compared directly to the national survey. 42 patients contacted us to give feedback, and 39 were positive about the practice.

Leaders and staff demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve it. The practice created an action plan in response to the annual National GP Patient Survey results and made other changes based on feedback they collected. We heard about changes made including: the introduction of a ‘total triage’ system to manage appointment requests and improved signposting to other local services when appropriate. We were told how these changes were assessed to make sure patients were not disadvantaged and how the impact of the changes was being monitored. We heard how the practice provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities, including adjustments to the registration and to how patients could communicate with the practice. The practice had received repeat funding for successful projects to identify patients whose health needs were not being met and improve their care. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care.

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.