Novum Health Partnership

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 a total of 7 quality statements from this key question. The rating for responsive at our last inspection was requires improvement. Following this assessment, this key question is now rated as good. We found information was provided in different formats to suit the needs of patients. We saw examples of patient centred care. Feedback from patients about the service was generally positive. The National GP Patient Survey showed patient satisfaction was lower than local and national averages regarding the overall experience of contacting the practice and the experience of contacting the practice via telephone.

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.

Patient feedback showed people received person centred care. The practice used an online tool for patients to contact the practice. However, staff at the practice supported patients who were unable to or did not wish to use the online system to access appointments.

Leaders at the service understood the needs of its population and tailored services in response to those needs. They told us that there were specific conditions that were more prevalent among the practice population. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the needs of populations served by the practice.

Staff that we spoke to were aware of the need to share decisions with the patient and/or their family. We reviewed several Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) agreements. Leaders at the service told us that there were detailed procedures in place where the practice worked with other providers as necessary, to put these in place, and to monitor them.

There were no concerns raised by partners regarding care provision, integration and continuity.

The service had a system in place that alerted staff to any specific safety or clinical needs of a person using the service, for example there were alerts about a person being on the end of life pathway. The service had systems and protocols to determine mental capacity and involved the patient and/or their family as required.

Information about their care and treatment was explained to patients in ways that were easy to understand.

Staff told us that information was available to provide to patients, families of patients and care home staff as required. Leaders at the service said they made changes to its ways of work through both informal feedback, and from complaints and incidents.

As part of the assessment a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor. This record review showed that patients were provided with necessary information relevant to their care.

Patients told us they knew how to make a complaint. Information about how to make a complaint was available in different formats, including online and in easy read format. Details of action taken as a result of patient feedback were shared with the practice’s patient participation group (PPG).

Staff at the service were aware of the complaints process, the need to provide details of the system to complainants, and the escalation procedure. Leaders at the service told us that issues were investigated across relevant providers, and staff were able to feedback to other parts of the patient pathway where relevant. They told us that the service learned lessons from individual concerns and complaints and from analysis of trends. It acted as a result to improve the quality of care.

Information about how to make a complaint or raise concerns was available and it was easy to do. Staff treated patients who made complaints compassionately. The complaint policy and procedures were in line with recognised guidance. We reviewed a sample of the complaints received by the service and found that all were satisfactorily handled in a timely way. We saw that the electronic database had a record of every step of the process of handling the complaint from receipt through to resolution.

The National GP Patient Survey published in July 2024 asked patients about their overall experience of contacting the GP practice and how easy it was to contact the practice by telephone. Patient satisfaction with these 2 indicators was lower than local and national averages. Patients were also asked how easy it was to contact the GP practice using their website. Patient satisfaction with this indicator was in line with local and national averages. The provider had reviewed the results of the survey and responded with an action plan. Actions included launching a new website, telephone system and online consultation tool. CQC received 5 complaints about the service in the last 12 months. Two of these complaints referenced difficulties accessing appointments, the provider has since taken steps to improve access. There were 43 reviews on the NHS website. Of these reviews, 38 were positive about the service, 2 were negative and 3 gave mixed feedback. Many of the positive reviews referenced good experiences of making appointments through the online consultation system. Some of the comments in the mixed and negative feedback expressed difficulty with accessing appointments.

Leaders at the service told us that they were actively engaging with a broad range of patient groups to ensure that all patient groups had equity of access.

Patients made appointments via an online consultation tool. Those patients who were unable or did not wish to use the online tool were assisted to make appointments by practice staff. The practice used a triage system where all patient requests were reviewed and directed to the most appropriate person, for example, GP, nurse, pharmacist or physician’s associate. The practice aimed to triage all requests and respond to the patient on the same day as the request. The practice had 2 sites, Rushey Green Group Practice and Baring Road Medical Centre, both of which were open Monday to Friday 8am to 6.30pm. Extended access appointments were available at Rushey Green Group Practice on Monday 6.30pm to 7.30pm, Wednesday 6.30pm to 7.30pm and Saturday 9am to 11am. Extended access appointments were available at Baring Road Medical Centre on Wednesday 6.30pm to 8pm.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Feedback about the service was mostly positive, and the provider took action based on negative feedback. Unverified data shared by the provider showed mostly positive feedback via the friends and family survey. Monthly data was shared with us from March to September 2024. The percentage of patients who described their experience with the practice as very good or good ranged from 82% to 88% during this time period.

Leaders at the service told us that they were actively engaging with a broad range of patient groups to ensure that all patients had similar experiences and outcomes.

The service had developed a framework based around patient and stakeholder engagement to develop systems to ensure equity in experience and outcome.

Patient feedback did not raise any concerns regarding planning for the future.

Feedback from staff and leaders did not raise any concerns about the organisation’s plans for the future.

We did not have any concerns about the processes that supported planning for the future.