Mayfield 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

We carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive and found: The practice had taken action in response to the National GP Patient survey results and feedback from patients through practice surveys and complaints.

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.

Results from the National GP Patient survey, published in July 2023, indicated that patients were less than satisfied with how they could access services and make an appointment. The practice scored lower than other practices both locally and nationally for the 4 access indicators. There was a particular negative variation for one indicator, the percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone was 27% compared to the national average of 49.6%. The practice carried out their own patient surveys approximately every 3 months to gather feedback from their patients. They also used the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT). The FFT was created to help providers understand whether patients were happy with the service provided or where improvements were needed. As part of the assessment, we asked patients to provide feedback by completing Give Feedback on Care on the CQC website. We received 10 responses that were all positive about the practice. Patients stated they could book appointments including face to face appointments when needed. Reception staff were described as pleasant and helpful.

The practice was open from 8am to`6.30pm Monday to Friday. Extended access was provided locally by Northampton GP Enhanced Access Service, where evening appointments were available from 6.30pm to 9.30pm Monday to Friday and weekend appointments were available from 9am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday. Patients could also access video consultations available via a digital healthcare provider, commissioned to provide services for their patients 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The practice provided a mix of face-to-face, telephone and online appointments. We were informed routine appointments were usually available the next day and could be booked up to 2 weeks in advance. Text messages were sent to patients to remind them of appointments when booked in advance. The practices clinical team included GPs, advanced nurse practitioners and practice nurses. The provider worked with their local Primary Care Network (PCN) to provide access to a variety of other clinical staff. For example, clinical pharmacist, physiotherapist and assistant physician associate. There were processes in place to support people who were more likely to have a poorer experience of care to support them to access services and register at the practice. Flags and alerts were used on the patient record system to identify these patients who may require additional support. The practice aimed to accommodate all their needs at the time of contact to avoid repeat appointments.

The leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve patient access. The practice reviewed appointment demand in the past to assess their capacity and appointments needed in the future. They planned their appointment availability 3 to 4 weeks in advance and made use of locum GPs to provide support at busy times. The provider had installed a new cloud-based telephone system in the same week as the inspection. This enabled them to view the amount of calls incoming in real time and adjust staff accordingly to answer calls at peak times. Patients had the option of having a call back when they had reached their place at the top of the queue rather than wait on the telephone. The practice introduced an online platform for patients to input their symptoms and answer a series of triage questions. A care navigator then contacted the patient with the most appropriate appointment or directed them to another health care professional such as a community pharmacist. If a patient was not able to use the online platform they could contact the practice by telephone or in person and the reception staff would carry out the triage questions with the patient and make an appropriate appointment. In September 2023, the practice also introduced a drop-in clinic once a week on a Thursday. This ran from 8am to 12 pm and from 2pm to 4pm. There were 5 clinicians available to see patients which created 150 face-to-face appointments. We were informed patients waited approximately 30 minutes to see a clinician. The reception staff took a reason for the patient’s attendance on arrival. The reception staff had received training to spot red flag symptoms of more serious medical conditions and alerted a GP if they were concerned about a patient waiting to be seen.

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.