Bridgemary Medical Centre

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. We reviewed two quality statements.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

We found leaders used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. The practice was designed to be accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The practice prioritised and allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access.

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.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in

decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was an improved complaints process in place, which included a designated complaints lead and a policy. Additionally, information on how to file a complaint was available on the practice's website. We reviewed a number of complaints and found they were actioned, as per policy, in an appropriate and timely manner. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. There was also an annual review of complaints which looked at themes, learning points, changes made and other planned actions.

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.

Patient appointments were available either online, face to face, via telephone, or as a home visit. Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, walking-in and could also submit medical or administrative requests online via the practice website. Patients could book routine appointments up to 2 weeks in advance and same-day appointments were available each morning. Staff confirmed both emergency and routine appointments were available during the week of the assessment. The practice offered appointments with a variety of clinical staff, for example GPs, health care assistants, pharmacists and practice nurses.

The practice offered people, who were cared for at home and could not access the practice, a routine, proactive home visit review with a GP. These individuals also had support from advanced care practitioners via the primary care network. There were arrangements in place for prioritising people based on need, including those receiving palliative care.

Staff had completed care navigation training, and the practice had designed and implemented a triage process for staff to follow. This included what was to be considered an urgent priority and how to respond accordingly.

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.