Great Barr Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Patient feedback from the GP National Patient Survey was negative in a number of areas. The practice was aware of the negative feedback and had recently implemented a patient participation group and had also carried out an inhouse survey to gather patient feedback during November 2024. However, at the time of the assessment, no action plan was in place as the practice were still gathering patient feedback.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

On speaking with people during the assessment they told us that they were treated with respect and they were listened too. The outcome of the GP National Patient Survey also supported this with the practice having achieved a score of 91% with people saying they felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment

The practice had received lower than national average scores in the 2024 GP National Patient Survey with 60% of people finding the reception and administrative team helpful, in comparison to the national average of 83%. The practice had seen a 23% in satisfaction for this indicator since 2023, however the action plan that was provided highlighted a review of training to continue to improve patient satisfaction.

We observed staff in reception and found them to be helpful and supportive. People were provided with information as requested.

Results from the GP National Patient Survey showed 53% say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment, this was significantly lower than the local and national averages.

The practice had access to interpreters to support people and told us that they had booked British sign language interpreter to provide support to people with hearing difficulties. The practice didn't have a hearing loop in place to provide additional support.

The practice held a range of registers to identify people who may need extra support. For example: learning disabilities.

Alerts were added to clinical records to inform staff of any support a person may need.

People's feedback highlighted that they felt they were listened to and given time to discuss their concerns. Staff were supportive and provided information to support decisions.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. We saw that consent was documented.

During the clinical review we found people with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes, had not been sent for screening and were unaware of the potential health risk they had.

On reviewing a sample of minutes of meetings, we found limited evidence that following an incident actions were taken to mitigate harm and mitigate future risks. Evidence of incidents that had occurred prior to the on site assessment had not been documented or evidence to demonstrate they had been discussed to share learning.

On speaking with staff we were unable to gain assurances that there was an awareness of what was available for people with caring responsibilities. A carers policy was in place but staff hadn't highlighted this when we spoke with them.

Some staff told us that the wellbeing of staff had improved since the last assessment with more regular meetings and the opportunity to share concerns, however there were still concerns about being able to speak freely with the leadership team.

On speaking with clinical staff we were unable to confirm that regular supervision was in place. Staff were unaware if consultations and prescribing was reviewed by the senior clinical team. The staff we spoke had no evidence available to demonstrate supervision was in place.

Staff appraisals were in place, however staff reported that actions that arose from appraisals had not been actioned. A new practice manager was due to start in January 2025 to support the existing leadership team and provide support to the staff.

We found that processes needed to be strengthened to ensure staff carrying out clinical reviews had completed the relevant training and had the appropriate competencies to make clinical judgements.