Riverport Medical 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

On 28 March 2024 we carried out an announced assessment of the equity of access part of the responsive key question. In 2023, patients at Riverport Medical Practice who responded to the national survey indicated satisfaction that was generally below the national average. The practice had used feedback and other information to try to optimise patient access. Since the last inspection in 2020 the practice had made some significant changes to the way that appointments were allocated, to the information available for patients, and to systems and processes, which had improved the speed in which patients were seen and gave the practice much better data about what patients needed. More recent feedback collected by the practice was more positive and showed some improvement from previous feedback. We were contacted by 5 patients, 3 of whom were wholly positive about the practice. The practice continued to monitor and make improvements.

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.

In 2023, patients at Riverport Medical Practice who responded to the National GP Patient Survey indicated satisfaction that was generally below the national average. The largest differences from average were for satisfaction with appointment times (28.5% compared to the national average of 52.8%) and satisfaction with the appointment offered (54% compared to the national average of 72%). This was a fall in satisfaction from 2022. The practice had carried out its own survey of 195 patients (in March 2023, 18% response rate). 88% said was very easy or fairly easy to book their appointment. The practice received 300 – 400 responses to the Friends and Family Test per month. These showed an improvement in satisfaction from October 2023 to January 2024 (from 75% to 89% saying that their experience was good or very good). 5 patients contacted us to give feedback for this assessment, and 3 were wholly positive about the practice. Other surveys and sources of patient feedback cannot be compared directly to the national survey.

Leaders and staff demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve it. The practice created an action plan in response to the annual National GP Patient Survey results and made other changes based on feedback they collected and based on guidance from other organisations. We heard that improvement was approached systematically, with changes to systems and processes and to staff training. We heard about how these changes were assessed to make sure patients were not disadvantaged and how the impact of changes was being monitored. We heard how the practice provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities, including adjustments to the registration and to how patients could communicate with the practice. We heard about ways that the practice was working with other local stakeholders to improve access to primary care.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, and in person by visiting the practice. Patients were asked to give some brief details about their concern to allow their request to be triaged. Patients could ask for administrative requests to be completed by filling in a form on the practice website. Where patients could be better supported by other local services, patients were advised as how to access these. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, video or as a home visit. Same day appointments were available and patients could also book routine appointments in advance. The practice was open 8am – 6pm Monday to Friday. Pre-booked appointments were also available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Where patients could be better supported by other local services, patients were advised as how to access these. Appointments were available with GPs, practice nurses, and healthcare assistants. There was also a physiotherapist, physician associates, a social prescriber and pharmacists. The practice was about to receive an upgrade to the phone system, to include better monitoring.

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.