Albany 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

This practice was last assessed in 2021 and responsive was rated as requires improvement. At this assessment, we assessed all the quality statements for this key question, and we found that significant improvements had been made. The provider showed compliance with legal equality and human rights requirements.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients shared with us during the site visit their concerns about accessing appointments and the performance data corroborated this. The survey indicated that the practice was below national and local averages. There were a few options available to patients to book appointments however, patients who spoke to the assessment team indicated that getting appointments to see a doctor was difficult. An action plan had been drawn up by the practice to improve patient access and overall experience. The impact of this action was yet to be seen.

Staff shared with the assessment team that the practice abided by the wishes of the patients and provided care according to the needs of the patients. Patient records reviewed by the assessment team corroborated this.

Staff informed the assessment team that the practice worked with other primary care network (PCN) healthcare professionals such as social prescribers and clinical pharmacists to provide care and continuity for their patients.

Feedback from partners did not show any concerns about this practice on service delivered to patients.

There were processes in place to ensure people were supported by a multi-disciplinary team.

Patients knew what the next steps would be within two days of contacting the practice and after contacting the practice for any issue according to the performance data.

Staff told us that the practice engaged in open days to create an awareness on breast cancer with the local community. This was one of the ways the practice provided information to improve the health of the patient population. The practice worked closely with other health professionals to create awareness with patients on health conditions and worked with carers to promote their health and wellbeing.

There was provision for support for people with hearing impairments. There was a clear system for obtaining and giving information to patients through the triage system.

The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who indicated that the health care professional was good at listening to them during the last general practice appointment was below the England average. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who indicated that the healthcare professional involved them in decisions about their care and treatment was below the England and local averages. To rectify this, the practice had drawn an action plan to improve patient satisfaction. The patient participation group (PPG) was involved in making improvements to the service provided. However, more needed to be done to ensure patients were more involved and satisfied with their experiences.

Staff told us that complaints were acted upon and responded according to its policy and procedures. Lessons learnt from the complaints were shared with the staff and when needed, staff were retrained to ensure that service provision was improved.

Feedback from patients was collected, reviewed and analysed to improve service delivery at the practice. Information made available to the assessment team showed that the patient population often do not know how to make a complaint as most of the patients did not have English as their first language and many have found it difficult to make a complaint. However, there were a few complaints that were dealt with by the practice and the lessons learnt from them led to an action plan to improve service provision at this practice.

The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment was below the England average. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey on how easy it was to contact the GP practice by phone was in line with the England average The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey on how easy it was contact the GP practice using their website was below the England average. There was an increase in the phone lines for patients to book appointments. However, staff needed to be trained in customer services to make it an effective improvement. The patient participation group (PPG) shared with the assessment team that there was need for a major overhaul on how patient / GP relationship was managed.

Staff shared with us that the practice was proactive in its approach to improving patient experience and had created an action plan in response to the results of the GP Patient Survey, although it was too early to see any impact on the patient access. The practice agreed in a staff meeting that Saturday clinics would be offered in addition to extended access through the primary care network (PCN). This information was placed on the practice website.

The practice had policy for managing access and this followed the Equality Act. Information was shared and received by both patients and staff via phones and in person. Triage was carried out by a trained member of staff and patients were offered appointments based on their needs and if urgent referred to the senior clinical staff. Weekend clinics were offered by the practice and there were other clinics made available by the local primary care network (PCN).

Feedback provided by patients during the site visit was mixed. However, the reception staff were said to be friendly and helpful with improvement needed on how GPs relate to the patients.

Staff at the practice looked for ways to improve patient experience and outcome which included working with other healthcare professionals.

The practice had processes to ensure that changes to people’s preferences were responded to appropriately. Patients with a learning disability (LD) received annual reviews and were able to attend with a family member or carer. A total of 42 LD health checks were completed out of 62 eligible and offered. Home visits were also offered based on need and patient circumstances. However, more needed to be done to improve patient experience and the practice was being proactive to achieve this. The practice was accessible for disabled people.

The patients we spoke to during the site visit and assessment had no concerns about planning for the future.

Staff told us that they supported their patients to make informed choices about their care and plan for the future whilst they had the capacity to do so.

There was a multidisciplinary team approach for discussing patients receiving care at the end of their lives. There were patients who had do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions recorded on their records and reviewed regularly depending on the changing needs of the patients. The families / carers of the patients were involved in making such decisions if judged to lack mental capacity.