Hockley Medical 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

The responsive key question remains rated as good. One quality statement, Equity in Access, was included in this assessment. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. A series of embedded and comprehensive audits regarding access were used to drive improvement at the practice. The practice identified and allocated resources as required to improve inequalities and support equity of access.

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. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, or as a home visit. Same day appointments were available, and patients could book routine appointments up to 2 weeks in advance. The practice told us they had increased the availability of online bookable appointments due to the increase in demand. Appointments with GPs were available on weekdays 8.30am to 6.30pm and on Saturdays 9am to 1pm. The practice offered appointments from a variety of other staff for example pharmacists, practice nurse, advanced care practitioner, mental health practitioner, health care assistant and social prescriber. When the practice was closed, patients were advised to contact NHS 111 or signposted to the out of hours service. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services and were supported to this by documented protocols and access to a duty doctor. The practice regularly carried out telephone audits to ensure appointments were appropriate and made improvements as required.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs. The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as the GP patient survey, friends and family, complaints and via informal feedback from patients. 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. We spoke with members of staff in leadership and management roles. It was clear that improving access and patient experience was a priority for the practice and negative patient feedback about access had led the service to review performance and identify improvements. The leadership explained they had reviewed data and made changes to the telephone system and increased the volume of bookable online appointment to make improvements for patients accessing the service. All non-clinical staff were trained in care navigation and the practice undertook ongoing audits to determine demand and capacity regarding their appointment system and continued to monitor the availability of appointments and staff on a daily basis. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care and were participating in 2 pilot projects to improve access. The practice provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities and leaders promoted the use of their website and online consultation service to improve access. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and migrants. The practice was registered as a Safe Surgery.

In the 2023 National GP Patient Survey, the practice’s data for access was mixed. Patient satisfaction with their GP practice appointment times and satisfaction with the appointment offered were in line with average. Patient satisfaction with getting through to the practice by phone and with the overall experience of making an appointment were below average. The practice’s outcomes for the ease of getting through to the GP practice was 24% compared to the national average of 49.6% and the overall experience of making an appointment was 27% compared to the national average of 54%. The practice completed an action plan to improve patient satisfaction and feedback gathered by the practice was more positive. For example, 237 patients completed the Friends and Family Test in February 2024. 89% said that their experience was good or very good. The practice had taken action following feedback from the patient participation group to increase online prebookable appointments for up to 2 weeks in advance. The clinical capacity had increased by 12 hours per week and staffing capacity had increased to support the telephone lines during peak times of the day which had reduced the waiting times in answering calls. We had feedback from 3 patients who made positive comments about the staff within the service, the overall experience of making an appointment and being able to book appointments in advance. Adaptations were made for patients whose first language was not English and patients who had information and communication needs related to a disability, impairment or sensory loss. The practice was accessible to patients with reduced mobility.

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.