Dr Chidambaram Balachander

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 practice monitored data and feedback related to patients’ experiences when accessing care at the service. Where opportunities to improve were identified, the practice responded with changes designed to enhance access as well as patients’ experiences and satisfaction levels. New appointments as well as new systems had been introduced and the practice was continuously monitoring systems and processes to help ensure they operated consistently for all patients.

This service scored 11 (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.

Results about the practice from the National GP Patient Survey published in July 2023 were above local and England averages in all 4 indicators regarding access to services at Dr Chidambaram Balachander (significantly so for 1 of these). Feedback from the practice’s Patient Participation Group (PPG), taken from meeting minutes, indicated patients were always able to get through to the practice on the telephone and staff were always helpful. Results of the Friends and Family Test for the period September 2023 to February 2024 demonstrated consistently high patient satisfaction scores regarding access to services at this practice.

Feedback received by CQC directly from staff regarding access to services by patients was mixed but predominantly positive. However, where staff feedback was mixed, this was not supported by patient feedback. For example, some staff indicated patients experienced difficulties with making appointments in a timely manner or with the choice of appointments. However, National GP Patient Survey results showed: 92.2% of patients who responded indicated it was easy to get through to someone on the telephone; 84.6% of patients who responded indicated a positive experience of making an appointment; 75.1% of patients who responded indicated they were vary or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment; and 89% of patients who responded indicated they were satisfied with the appointment(s) they were offered. Staff also told us how patient feedback was gathered by the practice for use to help make improvements (including improvements regarding access to services). For example: there was a suggestions box in the practice’s reception area; patients could email suggestions to the practice; patients could complain about services verbally or in writing; patients were able to attend Patient Participation Group (PPG) meetings; patients could ask to speak to a member of management staff during normal working hours; and the practice monitored results of the National GP Patient Survey.

Evidence showed the practice had systems and processes to monitor performance as well as gather patient and staff feedback in order to identify and implement improvements where necessary. For example: the practice monitored patient satisfaction results from the National GP Patient Survey as well as from Friends and Family Test results; the practice operated a complaints system; feedback from patients during Patient Participation Group (PPG) meetings; staff were able to give feedback to the practice and make suggestions of improvements during relevant internal practice meetings. The practice had implemented improvements in response to feedback / patient need. For example: nurse appointments had been introduced on Wednesdays 6pm to 8pm; extended access appointments had been made available on Saturdays; and unwell children under the age of 2 years were now prioritised and given an appointment or advice by a GP on the day. Evidence provided by staff in leadership, management, and support roles showed clear steps taken by the practice to ensure that improving access and patient experience was a priority for the practice.

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.