Parks Surgery Limited Also known as Pennington Park Surgery

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 this key question. During this assessment we found that patients could access care and treatment in a timely way. There was a good system in place to manage complaints in a way that demonstrated duty of candour and in accordance with regulatory requirements. Staff told us that they felt there were enough staff employed to meet the demands on the service that was being provided. Members of the patient participation group told us that information on how to look after themselves was available and easy to use and told us that they felt listened too.

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.

Members of the patient participation group told us that they received the most appropriate care and treatment for them. The provider made reasonable adjustments where necessary. Patients told us that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them and they also told us that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern. We looked at the most recent GP Patient Survey Results and 75.4% of respondents responded positively when asked about making appointments at the practice. The national average at the time was 49.7%. We were advised by members of the patient participation group that the ability to book future appointments was good and there were no real delays in getting through and making appointments.

Staff and leaders gave examples of people receiving the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the provider made reasonable adjustments where necessary. Staff told us they had all completed relevant training, and this was verified in their training records.

This was a well-established practice with the Lead GP being in position for many years. There was continuity in care and treatment because services were flexible. All staff that we spoke to told us they had undertaken equality and diversity training. The staff felt that the needs and preferences of people were considered when delivering care and treatment.

There was no specific feedback from partner services around care provision, integration and continuity.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The provider worked with services in a co-ordinated and responsive way. Wherever possible people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met people’s assessed needs from services that were coordinated and responsive.

People received information and advice that was accurate, relevant, up to date and provided in a format that individuals could understand. The members of the patient participation group that we spoke to felt that the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last appointment. Most of the members felt that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the decision being made about their care and treatment.

Staff and leaders ensured people’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. All staff had completed Information Governance training which included General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The practice offered time with patients that struggled with using online systems to get access to appointments and requesting prescriptions.

The provider had up to date policies and procedures in place around accessible information.

The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them was in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated the healthcare professional involved them in decisions about care and treatment was in line with England averages. We spoke to members of the patient participation group; they told us they felt encouraged and enabled to feedback about their care in ways that worked for them. They told us that the feedback was listened too and acted upon. The well-established patient participation group worked well with the provider. Suggestions for improvement were put forwards by members of the patient participation group and some suggestions were taken forwards and put into practice.

Learning from complaints and concerns had improved since the previous inspection and the practice saw concerns and feedback as an opportunity for improvement and learning. However, we discussed how further improvement could be achieved by encouraging staff to document and report verbal feedback such as positive or negative information received from patients throughout the day. This would provide the practice with an opportunity to analyse trends and understand where they were meeting or not meeting people’s needs. The practice agreed this was a protocol they could introduce. The lead GP was responsible for dealing with complaints about the practice but there was no independent reviewer of this.

Complaints were received by the provider in the form of written, verbal and email. All complaints were all logged and responded to. Responses were polite, sympathetic and displayed a duty of candour as required. There was good evidence that complaints were effectively investigated. Complaints were reviewed at monthly practice meetings. On written responses to complaints the provider omitted from referencing to the Public Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) on all occasions. We fed this back to the provider and are assured that this will now happen. The provider is to consider following up telephone complaint resolution conversations with a written response to convey actions / outcomes.

Members of the patient participation group told us that they could access care and treatment that met their individual needs. The care that they received was always to a good standard and they felt that there were enough staff employed at the practice to be able to treat all patients in a timely manner. They advised us that if they could not always see the clinician, they felt they needed to see, then they would get the correct care from a different clinician within the practice. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment was above the national average. 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 in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment times was in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who were satisfied with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered was in line with England averages.

Staff told us that they had been trained in care navigation which enabled them to feel confident in answering the majority of patient queries. Patients being able to make appointments and requesting repeat medications online meant that there had been a reduction in the amount of calls the reception team handled. The staff told us that this gave them more time to answer calls from those unable to use the online systems or with a perceived more urgent need. Support was available from the reception team on how to use the online system for those requiring this.

There were good processes in place to enable staff to raise any concerns or queries with clinicians if the reception staff felt that they could not answer specific questions from patients. People did not need to ring on the day to make an urgent appointment and if an appointment was free the following day that could be used. Appointments were available face to face, telephone or as a home visit if deemed appropriate. Routine nurse and doctor appointments could be made in advance as well as urgent appointments which were available on the day or in advance. 10-minute appointment slots were available to book on the day as well as for non-urgent future appointments. For patients that required longer appointment times these were available.

When we spoke to members of the patient participation group about overall experience and outcomes the feedback, we received was good overall. There were only small areas identified where improvements could be made, and it was acknowledged that these issues are similar in other GP practices. Patients advised us that they were happy with the outcome they received and thought that it was the right outcome for them or their loved ones most of the time.

We interviewed the practice staff and leaders and were told that they had attained gold in the ‘Pride in Practice’ award. The staff told us that they had completed all equality and diversity training and that they always work in a way that means their patients get the best outcomes after every contact with the practice. Staff were familiar with the patients and their individual needs and adjusted their approach as needed to meet their individual needs.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. All patients, including deaf patients, were able to access interpreters when required, including at first registration.

When we spoke to members of the patient participation group, they told us that they were involved in decisions around planning for the future. Patients told us that they and their families were involved in discussions and planning for future events.

Staff and leaders worked in such a way to make sure that patients and their families felt included in conversations when discussing end of life care and decisions around do not resuscitate orders with the clinicians. Extended appointment times were available for these types of conversations if they were needed.

The provider had good processes in place to support people to plan for important changes in their lives. We saw evidence staff acted without discrimination when supporting people and their families to make decisions. Staff acted in a supportive way that met the needs of everyone.