Watling Medical Practice

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

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.

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.

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. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example by undertaking case studies which they discussed with practice staff to ensure consistency and continuity of care. Cases discussed included people with dementia, the elderly, those vulnerable and people with chronic diseases. The practice could access community healthcare services when required.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes could be made available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or concerns about their treatment and support. There was no patient participation group and the practice had been unable to create and support a group of patients who could represent the views of the practice population. We also saw that opportunities to respond to feedback were not always taken, for example comments on NHS choices were not viewed and responded to. Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback obtained from inhouse surveys and complaints.

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 members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had changed the way in which hormone replacement therapy and contraception reviews were undertaken which had improved the service and freed up appointments for other conditions. People could access the service to suit their needs, for example online, in person and by telephone. There was a well maintained lift in place for people who could not manage the stairs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination and understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care which was adjusted to support people’s individualities. There were processes to ensure people could register at the practice and people in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers were treated equally. 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.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.