Harraton 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 7 quality statements in this key question. We found: On the whole, patient feedback about access to the service was positive. Information about how to make a complaint was readily available. Patients could access extended opening hours on an evening and weekend and had access to out of hours service. There was no Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place. We saw there were a range of policies in place to support the needs of people from a diverse range of backgrounds.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patient feedback we reviewed during this assessment showed that patient’s mostly felt they had been listened to. In the National GP Patient Survey, 94% of patients said they had been involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, and 75% said they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses. These scores were slightly higher than local and national averages.

Staff told us they felt they worked well together as a team to provide good care for patients. Some staff said that they would like to see improvements to time management to ensure clinics ran on time. Staff we spoke to gave us examples of how they would put patients at the centre of their care.

Staff told us how the practice was responsive to the needs of patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues.

We consulted with stakeholders. They continued to express concerns over the practice generally and how it was run and operated.

Patients could access extended opening hours on an evening and weekend and had access to out of hours service. Each GP had an allocation of appointments they could use to book follow-up appointments in if they felt this was needed to ensure continuity of care.

We saw that patient feedback was mostly positive and patients felt informed and that staff gave clear advice and explanations.

All staff reported that they had access to information that would support patients/carers in managing their care and treatment and they would either print the information off in a format that met their needs or send it to patients using text message.

Information about how to complain was readily available. We saw other information was available to patients online and in the practice.

Most patient feedback that CQC received was very positive about care and treatment received. Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed that of those people that responded to the survey, 94% were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, and 91% said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them. These scores were slightly above local and national averages.

Staff we spoke with were able to share examples of complaints that the practice had received and learning that had occurred as a result. Staff and leaders were aware that more could be done to gather patient feedback and we were told that ways to achieve this were being investigated.

At the inspection in June 2023 there was no Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place, and the practice did not take part in the Friends and Family Survey. At this assessment in June 2024, there was still no PPG in place. The practice had signed up to the Friends and Family Survey, but was only able to provide feedback for 1 month. We saw that there was a system in place to learn from patient complaints. The practice had received 6 complaints since the last inspection in June 2023 and we saw that these had been acted on.

Patient feedback we saw regarding access was generally positive. In the Friends and Family survey, 8 people noted that they had been seen quickly while 3 mentioned that they had had to wait to be seen. In the National GP Patient Survey, 65% of patients who responded found it easy to access the service by phone (local average, 52%; national average, 50%), while only 42% found it easy to access the service online (local average, 51%; national average, 48%). However, 58% said they usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, and 78% described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good, both of which were above local and national averages.

Staff we spoke with said they felt access to the service was good, but that waiting times to be seen at the practice could be improved. We were told how the opening times of the phone lines had been extended at Springwell House surgery so patients were able to contact either site for appointments.

Staff had access to telephone call data which meant they could review capacity and demand more effectively and they could amend capacity over the week to deal with busier periods. There was a system in place to monitor appointments and ensure there was enough capacity to provide access. At the last inspection in June 2023, we were concerned about the number of nurse appointments available at the practice due to nurse vacancies and absence. However, at this assessment in June 2024 we saw that a nurse had been appointed and appointments were available. A range of appointments were available, such as telephone appointments, online appointments, and face-to-face with both a doctor or a nurse. We checked the appointment system in real time during the on site part of the assessment and saw on-the-day appointments were still available and routine appointments were available within 2 weeks. Longer appointments and double appointments were available for those who needed them.

We saw that people with a long-term condition or a disability were more positive about their care than those who did not identify as having these conditions. On the National GP Patient Survey, 78% of patients with a long-term condition or a disability rated their experience of the service as good compared to the overall score of 71%. There was not enough data regarding other protected characteristics, such as race or sexuality, to use for this evidence category.

Staff told us they treated everyone with dignity and respect and gave us examples of non-judgemental practice, such as offering cervical screening to trans men where this was still needed or requested. They told us they kept registers to help to monitor those most at need of support, and that longer appointments and flexible appointment times were available for those who needed them.

We saw there were a range of policies in place to support the needs of people from a diverse range of backgrounds. There were registers of patients who may need extra support, such as those who were autistic, patients with a learning disability, and patients who were carers, to ensure they were offered annual reviews. There was a transgender policy which ensured patients were registered with the name and gender with which they identified. However, there were some gaps in training. We saw from the practice’s training matrix that staff had not completed mandatory training on autism or equality and diversity. Training on the Accessible Information Standard had not been completed by staff.

In the National GP Patient Survey, 86% knew what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice, and 95% knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting their GP practice. These scores were in line with local and national averages.

We were told that people who may be approaching the end of their life were identified and supported appropriately. We were told that patients would be discussed at palliative care meetings, however, minutes we saw from meetings were from several months prior to the assessment and therefore we could not be certain that these meetings were taking place on a regular basis.

Our clinical review of patient records where a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision had been recorded identified that, where possible, patients views had been sought and respected. Where necessary, people with legal authority or responsibility made decisions within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This included the duty to consult others about future plans for care where appropriate, such as carers, families, and/or advocates. Palliative care and multi-disciplinary team meetings took place to discuss future plans for care, however, minutes we saw from meetings were from several months prior to the assessment and therefore we could not be certain that these meetings were taking place on a regular basis.