Liscard Group 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 carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive. We found that the practice had organised services to meet patients’ needs. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek and improve access for people. For example, they had made some appointment types directly bookable online, such as telephone calls with the mental health nurse practitioner. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people including those most likely to have difficulty accessing care. For example, the practice told us they had arranged for asthma review sessions to be carried out in the school holidays to improve access for those children who had not been able to attend. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and developed opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. They told us they used messaging software to support patients to communicate with the practice, such as for self-monitoring and to send links to websites they may find useful. The practice monitored, reviewed and analysed data and feedback related to patient’s experiences when accessing care at the service. Where opportunities to improve were identified, the practice responded appropriately to improve access, patients’ experiences, and satisfaction levels.

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.

The 2023 GP patient survey data regarding access showed responses were in line with local and national averages and similar in performance to the previous year’s results. The practice had reviewed the GP patient survey data as part of their primary care network capacity and access plan and had taken action to make improvements. Results from the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) were reviewed and found to be positive. For example, in February 2024, 111 people responded to the survey and 97% of respondents rated their experience of the service as good or very good. CQC received feedback from 8 patients in response to this assessment, all of which were positive about the service. They included comments about phone calls being answered promptly and the helpfulness of staff. Adaptations were made for those whose first language was not English and for patients who had information and communication needs related to a disability, impairment or sensory loss. The practice was accessible to patients with reduced mobility.

Leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access. They told us they obtained data and feedback from various sources such as the GP patient survey, friends and family test data, complaints and informal feedback from patients. The practice took action in response to patient feedback about access, for example increasing the number of pre-bookable appointments. A capacity and access plan had recently been created with the practice’s primary care network with the aim of increase capacity within the practice and enhancing access for patients. Leaders explained how they provided support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities. This included adjustments to the registration process and to how patients could communicate with the practice. Feedback from staff demonstrated that people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode. We heard about changes they had made, for example changes to staffing during busy periods. The practice had a cloud-based telephony system and had recently made changes to their telephone system to improve patient experience with making an appointment, including a call-back function. They explained how they used data to monitor telephone calls and took appropriate action if, for example, queues were getting very long. The practice promoted the use of their website and online consultation service to improve access, however traditional methods of access were available to those who required it.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, and in person by visiting the practice. Information regarding access was displayed in the practice and online. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, online or as a home visit. At the time of the assessment, the practice told us that around 75% of GP appointments were face to face. Urgent and same day appointments, as well as pre-bookable in advance appointments were available to patients. The practice informed us that on booking an appointment, patients were offered the choice of appointment type. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Longer appointment times were available to patients who needed it. The practice opening times are Monday to Friday from 8am – 6.30pm. Information on how to access care out of normal GP hours was available to patients. Enhanced access appointments were available on weekday evenings and at the weekend. Staff were trained in care navigation and were supported by protocols to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or to signpost patients to other appropriate services. The practice offered access to a variety of clinical staff including GPs, physician associate, nurses, pharmacists, advanced clinical practitioner, and a social prescriber. Patients could also access first contact physiotherapists. The practice had set up a visual aid for staff which indicated the roles and specialisms of support staff to enable more efficient signposting and referrals. Where possible, follow-up appointments were arranged with the GP who had previously seen the patient, to enable continuity of care. Initiatives had been implemented and monitored to improve access, such as encouraging patients to make repeat prescription requests online. As the practice is situated in a health centre, patients had easy access to other services within the centre, including a wellbeing hub where the practice referred patients who needed this support.

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.