The Lakeside 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

We carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive and found: The practice had organised services to meet patients’ needs. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek and improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people including those most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and developed opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. The practice monitored, reviewed and analysed data and feedback related to patient’s experiences when accessing care at the service. Where negative feedback was received or opportunities to improve were identified, the practice responded with plans implemented and changes designed to improve access, patients’ experiences, and satisfaction levels. Systems implemented were evaluated for effectiveness.

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.

Leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve. The practice created action plans in response to patient surveys and to patient feedback relating to access. We were told how these changes were assessed to make sure patients were not disadvantaged and how the impact of the changes was being monitored. Leaders explained they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities including adjustments to the registration process, to how patients could communicate with the practice and community health and social wellbeing initiatives. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode, refugees and asylum seekers and Travellers. We heard about changes they had made including changes to staffing, appointment availability on days of the week identified as having access pressures, early morning appointments, availability of cervical smear clinics, coil fitting clinics and minor surgery at weekends and staff and patient education. The practice promoted the use of their website and online consultation service to improve access and had available online booking of appointments and online consultations. However traditional methods of access were available to those who were not digitally proficient. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care. For example, implementation of the local Primary Care Network (PCN) capacity and access improvement plan and the Askern Bumping Space (a health and social inclusive community initiative to reach out to vulnerable people to offer support, education and companionship and to offer/direct them to more appropriate services). Improving access and patient experience was a priority. They reviewed data and feedback and improvements were made.

In the 2023 National GP Patient Survey, the practice’s data demonstrated responses to patient satisfaction with GP practice appointment times, how easy it is to get through to the practice by phone, satisfaction with the appointment offered, and with the overall experience of making an appointment were in line with the national and local averages. The practice told us how they reviewed results and implemented action plans for improvement, for example staff training in care navigation and patient education. Patient feedback gathered by the practice was also positive. For example, 92.5% of respondents to the Friends and Family Test (FFT) between September and December 2023 said their overall experience of the practice was good or very good. The practice reviewed comments received and acted on them. Some people told us they had concerns in respect of access. These were ease of getting through to the practice by telephone, getting a timely appointment with a preferred GP, and perceived lack of reception staff. Leaders told us about plans already in place for improvement in these areas including a new telephony system, patient education on various clinical roles and staff education in care navigation and clinical roles. We found the leaders had gathered patient feedback by a variety of methods, responded to it and were continuously making improvements. We also found that adaptations were made for those whose first language was not English and for patients who had information and communication needs related to a disability, impairment or sensory loss. The practice was accessible to patients with reduced mobility, disabilities, baby and mothers and those who were hard of hearing.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, through an App., Accurx (a patient and healthcare professionals communication platform) and in person. Information was displayed in the practice, on social media and online. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, online or as a home visit. Same day and pre bookable appointments were available. Weekday evenings and weekend appointments were available through extended access arrangements with local GP practices in the network. Additional clinics were available according to demand at weekends. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained and supported by documented protocols to book appointments with members of the clinical team or signpost to other appropriate services. The practice offered appointments from a variety of clinical staff for example doctors, advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists, practice nurse and healthcare assistants. Appointments were available with advanced role clinicians through the PCN such as mental health practitioners, physiotherapists and dieticians. Messages on the telephone and social media platforms informed of differing clinical roles as alternatives to GP appointments. Information on how to access care out of normal GP hours was available on the telephone message system, social media, online and at the practice. We saw evidence that the number of available clinician appointments offered each week was adjusted, suitable for the population need and met requirements of the GP contract. The practice is supported by the NHS Modern General Practice model and funding to improve access. (An NHS plan for improving access and supporting practices to deliver care by this model). The practice demonstrated how feedback from patients was continually monitored. We were shown and told about feedback that was gathered, reviewed and acted upon. We saw resulting action plans in place. Initiatives had been implemented and monitored.

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.