Horizon Health Centre Also known as (within) For All Healthy Living 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

We assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question. Our rating for this key question is now good. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Requests for appointments were allocated based on clinical needs. The service understood their patient population. Changes were identified to improve the service where required.

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 received no specific feedback in this area.

Staff told us how they treated people as individuals and with respect. They told us they got to know people and their needs during regular appointments, and they responded appropriately.

Some staff told us they had completed specialist training and had additional responsibilities linked to their role. For example, the asthma nurse had training and experience in asthma management and good knowledge of how other local services support with this. Staff within the service worked together to offer a joined-up approach. People had a named GP who supported them in whatever setting they lived.

Partners told us the service had a consistent presence at local multi-disciplinary meetings in the community. They told us this was a valuable way to share information to understand the diverse health and care needs of the people in the community to ensure care is joined-up.

The service considered the importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care when delivering care and treatment. Systems and processes were in place to support people with a multi-disciplinary approach.

People knew what the next step would be after contacting the service.

Staff told us they provided people with information in a way that helped them to understand their health needs, and any advice given. They also supported people and their carers when needed to find further information and access community and advocacy services.

There was a system in place for staff to access interpretation services to support people who did not have English as a first language. The service website contained information about accessibility for example, how to request a large print or easy read document or if you require a British Sign Language interpreter. The website also listed specific information available to support children’s health and older people’s health.

People reported the healthcare professionals listened to them.

Staff were able to explain the importance of listening to people’s during their appointment. They supported people to be involved in decisions about care and treatment. They told us complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared in team meetings.

Patient feedback was collated, reviewed, and acted on to improve service and culture. An action plan had been created in response to the 2024 GP patient Survey. Information about how to complain was readily available. Complaints were listened to and acted upon to improve the quality of care.

People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. However, people found it difficult to access appointments online and over the phone. One person told us “their phone line is always engaged when you ring”.

Leaders explained how they understood the needs of the local population and had developed the service in response. Staff told us they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, a clinical pharmacist carried out medicines reviews where appropriate monitoring had taken place. Leaders told us they were aware of the challenges to access and had acted to improve access.

There were systems and processes in place for prioritising people presenting with the highest need, and staff had access to guidance to support decision making. The online appointment and medical advice system is now open throughout the day to free up phone access for those that are unable to use the online system. There was information available for people to support them to understand how to access services (including on websites and telephone messages). Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider and to CCQ was varied. Some people’s experience was positive however, some people who required regular prescriptions encountered issues or delays when trying to obtain their medicines: “doctors not prescribing medication on time or accurately”.

Staff told us they had a good understanding the local patient population and the difficulties they may encounter. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion.

There was an equality, diversity, and inclusion policy. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions. The service welcomed people to tell them their preferred method of communication so they can be contacted by the option most suited to them. The service was fully wheelchair accessible through the front door.

People had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff told us they attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss supporting people receiving end of life care. Some staff had experience of palliative care to enable them to support people with complex care needs.

Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made in line with relevant legislation, were appropriate and recorded clearly. People’s wishes were recorded on their patient record which were available to local health providers who may need to access them. End of life care was delivered in a coordinated way which took into account the needs of those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.