The Hollies Surgery Also known as Vida Healthcare

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 was proactive in ensuring patients had access for appointments to gain advice from the clinic. They recognised some patients experienced delays in getting through to the practice to access appointments. Although data from the GP patient Survey published July 2023 showed some lower performance in terms of patient’s experience, the practice had more positive feedback from patients interviewed by Healthwatch and from those who responded to the Family and Friends test. The practice provided evidence to show that they were reviewing , monitoring, and making changes to further improve patient experiences.

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.

People we spoke with gave positive examples of how the practice delivered person-centred care. A patient we spoke with told us of their recent experience where the practice provided person centred care. During their relative’s end of life journey they told us the practice staff had provided care that was personal to them both. This included clear decision making about preferred place of care and DNACPR. The practice staff liaised with the community team to ensure support was provided for both the patient and their relative. We also heard from a patient that adjustments specific to their needs were made to enable them to attend appointments for their long-term condition. Other patients and care home representatives reported positive experiences of person-centred care provided.

Practice staff and leaders told us that they did not discriminate when providing care and treatment. The practice undertook reviews of their patient population to identify areas where person centred care could be enhanced, for example, identifying patients with a learning disability and ensuring that appointments were made during times that were convenient for the patient and their carer.

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.

The practice leaders evidenced they complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff told us interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. Information was easily available on the practice website and this was available in other languages. Staff told us they discussed changes to care or treatment with patients and their carers as necessary to ensure they had appropriate and timely information to cope emotionally with their care. During the onsite visit we were told there was a staff member who ensured that information for patients was easily available. This included information leaflets and notice boards which they told us they were proactive in keeping relevant and up to date. We reviewed these and saw information for patients how to access support groups and other organisations.

We did not have any specific comments from people regarding information provided by the practice.

The practice leaders told us they had a proactive approach to listening to and involving people. They engaged with their patient participation group to discuss and review feedback in respect of access and services delivered by the practice. Leaders told us they had engaged with Healthwatch and invited them to undertake an ‘Enter and View’ visit to obtain direct patient feedback. The Healthwatch report was shared with the practice and leaders told us they reviewed the information along with that from the GP Patient survey data. In addition, we were told that data they collected via the Family and Friends test, feedback from complaints and compliments as well as comments left on the NHS.uk website were collated. Leaders told us they used this information in collaboration with staff to inform their ongoing action plan to further improve the positive experience of patients.

Patient views were acted on to improve services and culture. Complaints were listened and responded to and used to improve the quality of care. We reviewed 3 complaints the practice had received and found the practice had investigated and responded to the patient appropriately. The members of the patient participation group we spoke to told us the practice leaders attended their meetings and communicated with them outside of the organised meetings. They told us the practice listened to any concerns they raised and responded. Where appropriate the practice had made changes and communicated these to the group.

Appointments could be made in person, via telephone or online. The practice was open Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm. Outside of these times, patients were advised to contact NHS 111 for out of hours appointments. We reviewed the practice’s appointment system and found the next available urgent appointments were available on the same day as our assessment. The next available routine appointments were available on the next working day, and included online, telephone and face-to-face appointments. All appointment requests were triaged by trained reception staff and assigned to clinical staff or signposted elsewhere, for example to a pharmacy. Interpreters were available for patients who did not speak English as a first language. The practice’s website could be translated into different languages. The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues. Staff had undertaken equality and diversity training. In addition they had undertaken specific training to ensure patients who may otherwise have been marginalised had equality in access, experience and outcomes. This training included that for supporting homeless people and those with visual impairment.

The practice was aware of the issues around telephone access and had confirmed to us their plans to improve the telephone system to address this. The practice teams worked together to prioritise the answering of telephones at peak demand times. The practice shared unverified data on the practice’s telephone and appointment system with us. This showed an increase in the number of appointments that had been made available to patients. Staff told us there were processes in place to ensure both positive and negative feedback about the practice was shared with the individuals and wider team. The practice shared their action plan, this included access and appointments. We saw the practice had implemented some of the changes and had strategic plans for further increasing the clinic workforce in the future. This was to ensure there was succession planning, continuity and sustainability.

Data from the GP patient survey 2023 showed the practice was in line with the local and national averages for patient satisfaction in respect of access. Feedback we received from patients was mixed. Some patients reported delays in getting through on the telephone whilst others did not have difficulties with accessing and gaining appointments.

The practice actively sought out and listened to information about their patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcome. Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. This ensured that they were able to communicate with staff, ask questions, be involved in decisions and understand the information given to them by clinicians. The names of patients who were carers were held on a register. The practice was proactive to ensure they were flexible with appointment times to ensure the person they cared for or themselves could access advice and treatment at convenient times. The practice had undertaken an audit in respect of services for any patient who was homeless as they recognised poor health can be both a cause and consequence of homelessness. Actions the practice took included becoming part of the Safe Surgeries Initiative which included not asking for proof of address. They offered health checks and health screening with appointments booked at times convenient to the patient. The practice ensured there was communication with the wider teams promoting access to support groups and other services.

The practice leaders told us they understood the importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care in the services provided. They made reasonable adjustments for patients that found it hard to access services. We were told the practice was flexible in their approach to supporting patients. For example, patients with sensory needs could request to attend the practice during quieter periods, and patients with learning disabilities were able to see a clinician with whom they felt most comfortable. Staff, both clinical and non-clinical, told us they were proactive in working with patients who may become more anxious in the healthcare environment. Clinical staff offered appointments for patients to meet them and become familiar with the environment. They told us this gradually gave the patient and their carers the ability to attend appointments for treatment. They shared with us examples where patients were now confident to attend the practice for treatment and monitoring of their long-term conditions. Staff we spoke with told us they were proud of this work to ensure those vulnerable patients had a more positive experience with improved outcomes.

Patients and care home representatives we spoke with told us the practice provided telephone advice and home visits if necessary. This included those for routine and proactive care as well as those for acute need.

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.