Manston 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 assessed all quality statements from this key question and our rating is Good. Leaders were aware of the ongoing challenges regarding patient access, and they had reviewed access and appointment availability to ensure that patients were able to make an appointment with the most appropriate member of their team. The practice actively sought patient feedback and have been making changes to drive improvement.

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.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders understood the needs of their local population. They demonstrated a good understanding of the practice’s demographics, challenges they faced and systems in place which placed patients at the centre of care. The practice had various avenues of support and could refer patients to alternative services which included a wellness coordinator and a social prescriber within the primary care network.

Staff and leaders shared how they involved patients with their care and treatment, had discussions, offered choice and supported patients to have information provided about their care in a way that they could understand. Staff and leaders shared feedback from a recent session around vision and values where staff had highlighted how they felt the practice should be patient-centred, accessible and empathetic.

Feedback received from NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board indicated that there was no indication of concern in this area.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The practice held registers of different patient groups, including those with a learning disability and carers.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders assured us efforts were made to keep practice information up to date. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Individual communication needs were noted on a patient’s clinical record and some staff within the practice were bilingual. Staff told us they supported patients with using online services and shared an example of how they had provided information to patients, for example sourcing information within their native language. The practice also had an electronic patient check in system that was available in multiple languages.

The practice website had the functionality to translate to other languages and was accessible. For example, the website colour, contrast level, font and size could be changed. The website had different information available regarding opening times, extended access, home visits, new patients and test results. Posters were displayed in the reception and the waiting room to provide patients with information on the practice and the different services available to them.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders told us the different ways that patients could share feedback and raise complaints. This included the NHS Friends and Family Test, the complaints process and through compliments. Staff we spoke with understood the complaints process and how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they might have. Staff told us how learning from complaints was used as an opportunity for improvement.

The practice had a complaints process, policy and patient leaflet in place. The practice website also gave advice on how to complain. Complaints were discussed in meetings and learning shared with all staff. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The practice kept a log of written and verbal complaints to ensure all opportunities to learn from feedback was captured.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey (2024) showed that 56.9% of patients responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone (Expected Average 49.7%) and 68% of patients responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice (Expected Average 67.3%).

Staff and leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to patient access and had acted to improve it. The practice had made changes to their telephone services, branch surgery opening hours and reviewed their appointment system to ensure that patients were able to make an appointment with the most appropriate member of their team in a timely manner.

The main surgery (Manston) was open between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday. The branch surgery (Scholes) was open Monday to Friday 8am to 12 noon and Wednesday and Friday from 2.30pm to 5pm. Patients could access pre-bookable appointments as well as evening and weekend appointments at various practices within the Primary Care Network.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and could share examples of working with patients who might need reasonable adjustments. Staff told us they could access communication assistance, including British Sign Language and interpreters for those patients who needed it and had ordered a hearing loop for each site.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Home visits were carried out for housebound and vulnerable patients. The practice attended a virtual MDT with the local care home. Reasonable adjustments were made, including longer appointments, for those who required them. Staff had received equality and diversity training. Support with using online services was offered to those patients who needed it.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders told us that people were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. Any decisions made regarding care and treatment were documented and reviewed as required. Palliative care patients were reviewed within multi-disciplinary meetings. Clinical staff told us that the mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards training formed part of their mandatory training schedule. The practice had a policy in place for consent and staff were able to share their understanding of consent.

As part of the assessment process and clinical notes review, we reviewed 5 Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) care plans. We found forms were completed in line with guidance and with the input of patients.