Green Porch 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

We assessed all 7 of the quality statements from this key question. We have combined the score for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was Requires Improvement. Our rating for this key question has changed to Good. People received person centred care. People, those who supported them, and staff could easily access information and advice. This supported them in managing and understanding their care and treatment. There was partnership working to make sure that care and treatment meets the diverse needs of communities. People were encouraged to give feedback, which was acted on and used to deliver improvements. Improvements had been made to ensure their was equity in access and in peoples experiences and outcomes. There were systems and processes for planning for the future.

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 asked the provider to share details of our Give Feedback on Care process on their website and although we received 15 pieces of feedback, none were specific to this area.

People’s records fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs; including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. People could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them, as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. People understand their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. There were systems and processes to support this.

Staff and leaders told us people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that meets their assessed needs from services that are co-ordinated and responsive. Where services had not been co-ordinated, these were reviewed as an incident, appropriate action taken and shared learning was cascaded to all staff.

Where partners had received information of concern from people about their care, they shared these with the provider. Partners reported that the practice management team were responsive and supported people to receive care and treatment that was person centered and met their needs. For example, when changes to local secondary care protocols changed.

There were clear policies and procedures to ensure: people receive care and treatment from services that understand the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities; continuity in people’s care and treatment which was delivered in a way that meets their assessed needs and for delivering and co-ordinating services (considering the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care).

We asked the provider to share details of our Give Feedback on Care process on their website and although we received 15 pieces of feedback, none were specific to this area.

Staff and leaders provided us with evidence that showed people could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they can understand and which met their communication needs. People who use the service, their family and carers (where appropriate) were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and supported their rights and choices.

There were policies and procedures for staff to follow to ensure people had information that was tailored to individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, interpreting and translation for people who don’t speak English as a first language and for d/Deaf people who use British Sign Language. People who have using digital services were also supported with accessible information. There were systems to ensure information about people that was collected and shared met data protection legislation requirements.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mainly positive. Where feedback was negative, we reviewed the persons records and found that their concerns had been addressed by providing them with a further consultation and investigating under the practices complaints process. People, their family and carers felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. At our last inspection in June 2023, National GP Survey results showed that 74.8% of people responded positively in relation to being involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. During this assessment, results from the 2024 survey showed this had increased to 82%.

People knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues. They could do so in a range of accessible ways. People were kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. Where improvements were required as a result, people had the opportunity to be involved in decisions made in relation to next steps in their care and treatment or during future experiences of the service.

There were systems and processes to ensure people felt that their complaint or concern would be investigated thoroughly and they would receive a response in good time. Records viewed showed complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions for people who raised them.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mainly positive. Where negative or mixed feedback had been provided, this related to the period of time when the provider was transitioning between phone systems. At our inspection in June 2023, National GP survey results from 2022 showed the percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone was 52.7%. This declined in 2023 to 3.7%. Results from 2024 show that since the implementation of the new phone system, this had increased to 21.7%. However, this remained lower than the National average of 41% and local average of 50%.

People could access services when they need to, without physical or digital barriers, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. The physical premises and equipment were accessible. People were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support (whether this was from wider society, within organisational processes and culture or from individuals). Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who are most likely to have difficulty accessing care.

There were systems and processes to ensure the provider used people’s feedback and other evidence, to actively seek to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care. As well as, people having equal access to care, treatment and support because the provider complies with legal equality and human rights requirements; including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments. The provider was ensuring auditing of access was maintained, which included capacity and demand of appointments, numbers of appointments offered, those accepted or declined and also those which were offered and not attended. These audits supported improvements or changes to be made (where required).

We asked the provider to share details of our Give Feedback on Care process on their website and although we received 15 pieces of feedback, none were specific to this area.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet or digital devices.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Records viewed showed that when people expressed their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wish. When people’s future care preferences are for greater independence and fewer care interventions that are likely to benefit them, professionals worked together to support them to achieve their goals.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they have the capacity to do so. Decisions and choices made by people were documented and reviewed as required. When any treatment is changed or withdrawn, professionals communicated and managed this openly and sensitively.

There were systems and processes to ensure people who may be approaching the end of their life were identified (including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable). This information was shared with other services and staff.