Firs House 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 carried out a targeted assessment of Firs House Partnership without a site visit. Overall, the practice is rated as good. We rated the key question of responsive as good. We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers. Our inspection team was led by a CQC lead inspector who spoke with staff using video conferencing facilities and reviewed documents provided by the provider off site. The practice delivers General Medical Services (GMS) to a patient population of about 12,500. This is part of a contract held with NHS England. The provider is registered with CQC to deliver the Regulated Activities; diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, treatment of disease, disorder or injury, family planning and surgical procedures. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the tenth lowest decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. The practice is part of a wider network of GP practices in Cambs Northern Villages primary care network.

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.

Feedback was collated, monthly, annually and also daily. The staff who worked at the practice had been there many years and encouraged patients to have a drink and chat to gain their feedback at each appointment. Patient feedback from all sources used would be audited monthly and the provider had seen an increase to survey results. GP's were allocated for continuity of care for patients residing in a care home. A prescription clerk would call all care homes from 7 am in order to reconcile any medication changes from the previous day. The practice held regular care home meetings to gain access feedback and this had shown positive results. The provider had a robust process of all patients being consulted prior to any changes made to access to ensure it was reflective of the feedback accurately. Dedicated meetings for complaints, significant events and compliments were held and all learning had input from all staff and clear communication was documented in order to ensure all feedback data was accurate and reflective before any changes made.

The provider would involve all staff with complaints to gain feedback and opportunities to learn, including self-reflection. The provider collated all patient feedback into an action plan and discussed at each meeting and changes would be agreed with input from staff and actioned. The action plan was updated and communicated to all staff. The provider rota had designated breaks for staff to be able to have a chance to discuss with leaders and well-being was forefront for all staff. The provider also engaged in team building activities outside of work to ensure staff felt included and this had been positive for an open culture of trust and communication.

At this inspection, we rated the practice good for providing responsive services. We found that since the GP national patient survey data results, data had been lower due to dissatisfaction by patients due to the local integrated care board implementing online access. Due to the patient rurality and elderly population, this change had negatively impacted on the national GP patient survey. In response, the provider had implemented a hybrid way of working that was demonstrating positive results on in house monthly patient surveys. Same-day access was tailored where possible. Patients were given options to self-book certain appointments to make access to the practice more streamlined. The provider would mark patient notes with preferred modes of access to support appointments. Longer appointment times were made available for more complex patients to avoid multiple appointments.

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.