Ashton Medical Group

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 looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Patients were involved in decisions about their care. People told us they valued the support they received during consultations, with doctors listening attentively and providing thorough care.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Although the majority of written information was in English, staff told us they had access to services for translating documents into appropriate languages, including into English. Some of the clinicians were able to speak other languages and some staff were trained in British Sign Language. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

People were positive about the responsiveness of the practice. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test showed people were satisfied with services and people were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from the PPG the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service, for example the service had introduced total triage for appointments and requests, where people submitted their request online. Staff reported the system was working well and had increased capacity. People were supported to complete the triage form if they contacted the service by telephone or in person. Some people expressed dissatisfaction and confusion around total triage and thought they were unable to phone the service to request appointments or support with the triage form. GPs were responsible for triaging the information. People were offered an appointment appropriate for their assessed need or directed to an alternative service. People who required routine appointments outside of the usual working hours had access to an enhanced access service operated by the local primary care network. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and power assisted doors had been fitted to the entrance. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mixed. Whilst we saw the practice was attempting to improve access, this was not reflected in the National GP survey feedback from people who used the service. However, the practice’s own annual survey showed a slightly higher score in patient experience. We also saw evidence that the results were improving year on year. The practice continued to monitor access and routinely audited capacity and demand

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.