Crawford Street Surgery

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 responsive key question remains rated as good. One quality statement, Equity in Access, was included in this assessment. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. A series of embedded and comprehensive audits regarding access were used to drive improvement at the practice. The practice identified and allocated resources as required to improve inequalities and support equity of access.

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.

The GP patient survey (GPPS) data from 1 January to 31 March 2023 regarding access indicators found the practice had higher percentages than the England average for 2 indicators. 77% of respondents to the GP patient survey responded positively regarding how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone. This indicated a significant positive variation compared to the England average of 50%. 64% of respondents were positive regarding the overall experience of making an appointment. This was identified as comparable to the England average of 54%. Indicators regarding respondents being satisfied with their GP practice appointment times, and with the appointment offered were comparable to but slightly lower than the England averages. For example, 51% of respondents were satisfied with appointment times compared to an England average of 53% and 69% were satisfied with appointments offered, compared to an England average of 72%. This was an upward trend across 12 months from 55% in April 2022. The practice compiled a GPPS action plan where they monitored trends across time, highlighted increases and decline in satisfaction, analysed this and took action to improve. The practice provided access to an interpretation service for patients who did not have English language as a first language and a sign language service for patients who required it. The patient record system was used to alert staff to any access requirement the patient had to help enable effective communication with the patient. Patients who were frail or vulnerable and required continuity of care were also flagged on the system. We found the practice took account of patient feedback and made changes accordingly. For example, the practice told us that patients wanted to see their preferred GP and could email them directly. We received positive feedback about the practice from 11 patients via Give Feedback on Care in February 2024.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and had developed services in response to those needs. The practice told us they had a cloud based telephony system and identified this as part of the reason for their patients improved experience of access by phone. They monitored incoming calls on a daily basis and had increased the number of staff answering calls Monday to Friday between 8am and 10am to reduce the number of patients waiting in the queue. Telephony reports demonstrated this improved the patient experience of access by phone. For example, in October 2023 prior to extra staff answering calls there was a 13% missed call rate. In December 2023 with additional staff this had reduced to 6% of the total inbound calls. The practice undertook ongoing audits to determine demand and capacity regarding their appointment system and continued to monitor the availability of appointments and staff on a daily basis. Patients could access appointments by phone, online and by visiting the practice. The practice used a sign-posting triage system where reception staff would ask the patient for enough information to make a decision regarding which clinician was appropriate for them to see. Reception staff received annual sign-posting training. Patients were given the option of a face to face or remote appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day either at the practice or at the same day access hub. The practice told us elderly and vulnerable patients and children requesting an emergency appointment were seen at the practice. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. The range of options included by telephone, by visiting the practice, and online. People in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode. Non-clinical staff had completed the Oliver McGowan training in learning disabilities and autism.

Patient appointments were available either online, face to face, by telephone, or as a home visit. Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, walking in and could also submit medical or admin requests online via the practice website. Patients could book routine appointments in advance and same-day appointments were available each morning. The practice also made use of a text message service to send and receive information from patients and an online software system to communicate with patients. The practice was open Monday to Friday from 8am – 6.30pm. Appointments were available from 9am – 6pm. Additionally there were enhanced access hubs which the practice could use to book routine appointments, and same day access hubs for urgent appointment demand. The practice could book these appointments directly for patients. The practice offered access to a variety of clinical staff for example GP, advanced nurse practitioner, practice nurse, health care assistant, paramedic, clinical pharmacist, community matron, social prescriber, care navigator and a health and well-being coach. The practice had arrangements for prioritising patients. Staff had completed sign-posting training and the practice had a sign-posting triage system for staff to follow. The reception team were supported by a duty doctor. The practice conducted audits of the triage process to ensure appointments were appropriate and made improvements as required. The practice told us that patients were provided with a direct email contact to a GP. A patient could email with a non-urgent request and would receive a response within 48 hours. If the patient required an appointment the GP would schedule this with them at a mutually convenient time to help ensure continuity of care.

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.