Stopsley Village 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

This means we found the service understood the needs of the people and communities they served.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good.

At this inspection, the rating has remained Good.

However, the practice needed to continue to make further improvements to make sure all people could, and were supported to, access the care and treatment they needed, when and where they needed it.

Systems for recording and responding to complaints and seeking and acting on patient feedback required strengthening.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback we received from people who used the service was mixed. For example:

• Some patients told us they could book an appointment with a particular clinician of their choice or with a male or female member of staff if they requested it. However, other patients told us they had found it difficult to book an appointment with a clinician who knew their medical history.

• Other patients told us practice staff recognised their needs and appreciated the help practice staff gave them in managing regular appointments, such as pre-booking appointments, requesting medicines and blood tests.

• People told us treatment options were discussed with them and plans were agreed with them in accordance with their preferences.

• We received positive feedback about reasonable adjustments the practice made to help people with a learning disability and autistic people when they needed to go to the practice.

Since July 2022, there has been a legal requirement for providers to make sure their staff receive training to help them support autistic people and people with a learning disability.

Although we saw evidence some staff had completed suitable training, because the provider did not have oversight of the training completed by staff, it was unclear if all staff had completed this training.

Staff described how they respected patients’ privacy and dignity, for example:

• The steps clinical staff took to protect the dignity and privacy of patients attending for cervical screening.

• The use of a private room off the waiting and reception area if someone became distressed or wanted to discuss sensitive or private concerns.

While the practice recognised the importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care,

leaders recognised challenges the practice had and that the practice could not always deliver continuity of care.

However, non-clinical staff told us they always tried to book appointments that suited requests from individual patients, such as requests for appointments at certain times of the day, with certain clinicians or longer appointments.

The practice understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities.

The provider told us about actions they had taken and activities they had been involved in with the aim of improving the health of local people. For example, practice staff speaking in programmes on a local radio station about health issues such as diabetes and urological problems and attending women-only well-being events.

Leaders told us public attendance at a diabetes awareness programme and at cancer awareness events had been good. These events included campaigns to improve uptake of cervical screening and testing for prostate cancer in people who are at high risk. However, the effectiveness of these were not yet reflected in validated evidence available at the time of this inspection, such as in reported figures for the uptake of cervical screening and childhood immunisation.

The practice supported residents living in a local care home through weekly virtual meetings with care home staff.

Care home staff told us doctors would see patients living at the home by video consultation. Face-to-face GP visits to the care home were carried out on request and when the practice felt it was appropriate.

Patients could pre-book appointments and clinicians could book in patients for a follow-up appointment with them or another suitable member of staff, when they felt it was appropriate.

People receiving regular treatments could book their next appointment before leaving the practice.

People who gave feedback for this inspection told us they found practice staff to be approachable and informative. People told us they felt staff took time to listen to them and give them information in ways that meant they did not feel they were rushed.

Comments left in online reviews of Stopsley Village Practice were similar, with people saying they felt there was time to answer questions and that staff listened to their concerns with compassion.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), a requirement for all providers of NHS care. The AIS applies to people who use a service, and their carers or parents, who have information or communication needs because of a disability, impairment or sensory loss. For example, there was a hearing loop for people who are deaf or have difficulty hearing.

The practice had effective systems for keeping confidential and sensitive personal information secure, including patients’ medical records that were held and used on computer systems.

The provider was registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Information was available advising patients how their information was stored and managed.

Telephone and online consultations and calls took place in appropriate environments that promoted confidentiality, such as in areas of the practice not accessed by patients or in clinical rooms.

The practice played music in the waiting area to make it harder for people waiting to overhear discussions at reception or in clinical rooms.

Some people who used the service told us the practice had not responded to their feedback or requests to discuss their concerns and possible improvements the practice could make with the practice manager.

We spoke with representatives from the practice’s Patient Participation Group (PPG). They told us practice staff were good at listening to concerns and queries raised by the PPG and would progress things further when it was needed. PPG representatives told us there was good two-way communication with practice staff.

Although leaders told us complaints were discussed in meetings they had with the PPG, representatives from the PPG told us they did not currently discuss complaints. However, PPG members told us they planned to discuss with the practice if and how an overview of complaints could be shared with them.

Leaders were aware of the results of the 2024 national GP Patient Survey and the areas the survey indicated the practice could make improvements.

Minutes of a staff meeting showed improvements between the findings of the 2023 and 2024 surveys had been discussed with staff.

The practice had created their own survey, based on the questions in the GP Patient Survey. Paper copies of the survey were available in the practice’s waiting areas. It was too soon for the provider to analyse any information and share their findings and resulting actions with us for this inspection.

Staff were aware of the practice’s complaints procedure and told us they would advise people how they could make a complaint if the person wished to.

Staff told us complaints were discussed in staff meetings.

However, 33% of staff who provided feedback for this inspection told us they were not made aware of complaints affecting the practice. Of the staff who said they were made aware of complaints, 62% of staff who provided feedback for this inspection did not share with us an example of a complaint they had been made aware of.

People could make a complaint using an online ‘feedback form’ or by writing to the practice.

Information about how to complain was available on the practice’s website. However, this lacked detail about the practice’s complaints policy and procedures, what people could expect, and what people could do if they were not satisfied with the practice’s response to their complaint.

There was a system for recording and responding to complaints.

Although the provider did not share with us information about any complaints the practice had received between April 2024 and our inspection, leaders told us about 11 complaints they had recorded between April 2023 and March 2024.

We looked at the records for 3 of these complaints and found the practice had responded to the complainant appropriately and in a timely way.

The practice’s complaints review also included information about another complaint that had been referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman as the complainant had not been satisfied with the practice’s response.

The practice encouraged people to give feedback about the service through leaving a review on the NHS website or by the NHS Friends and Family Test. People could take part in the NHS Friends and Family Test by completing an online form or posting a paper form in a feedback box in the practice.

Positive and negative patient feedback was discussed in monthly practice staff meetings, and compliments received by the practice were displayed on a noticeboard in the upstairs area for all staff to see.

Some people who provided feedback for this inspection said access to appointments was good and that they were often seen on the same day. However, others told us queues on the telephone lines could be long and that they needed to wait for an appointment.

Of the 7 online reviews of the practice on the NHS website, 2 were positive about access to appointments.

However, the person who left the 1 review about Stopsley Village Practice that had been made on the Healthwatch Luton website was very dissatisfied with the service, and commented about difficulties they had had making appointments.

The results of the 2024 GP Patient Survey showed fewer were positive about access at Stopsley Village Practice than the national average. Of the people who responded to the survey:

• 33% were positive about how easy it was to contact the practice by telephone (compared with 50% nationally and 37% in the BLMK area).

• 57% responded positively about their overall experiences of contacting the practice (compared with 67% nationally and 57% in the BLMK area).

However, although direct comparisons cannot be made with the findings from previous years’ GP Patient Surveys because the way information was collected changed, these findings could indicate improvements since the 2023 survey.

The practice monitored the quality of access and made improvements in response to findings. For example, the practice investigated issues with the phone lines into the practice and changed to using a cloud-based telephone system in May 2024. Leaders, members of the practice’s Patient Participation Group (PPG) and patients told us this had been a significant improvement.

However, the impact of some of the actions the practice had taken, and planned to take, were not yet known or reflected in validated evidence available at the time of this inspection, such as in the findings of the national GP patient survey.

46% of patients registered with the practice had signed up to online services. The needs of people, including those who might be digitally excluded, had been considered in relation to access.

Staff and leaders were aware of challenges affecting the service, including the limited space available and the limitations of working from a converted residential building. Leaders told us about various options they had explored to manage this and that they had worked with commissioners of NHS services in the area.

Patients had timely access to appointments and action was taken to minimise the length of time people waited for care, treatment or advice.

The practice offered a range of appointment types including face-to-face, telephone and online consultations and home visits.

Appointments with various clinicians were available, including with an advanced nurse practitioner, doctors, healthcare assistants, physician associates and practice nurses, including minor illness nurses.

Patients with the most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised. Both ‘urgent, or ‘same day’, and pre-bookable appointments were available. When the practice was closed, patients were directed to access support, treatment and advice from the NHS 111 service or emergency services.

The practice was a member of a wider network of GP practices known as the eQuality Primary Care Network (PCN). This PCN includes 4 GP practices working together to address local priorities in patient care. A care coordinator, health and well-being coaches, mental health practitioners, a pharmacist team, a physician associate, physiotherapist and social prescriber were employed by the PCN and supported patients registered with Stopsley Village Practice.

There was information in the practice and on the practice’s website to support people to understand how to access services.

Patients could ask for repeat prescriptions online, by using a ‘prescription request slip’ delivered to the practice, or via their local pharmacist.

Feedback from people who interacted with the service was mixed. For example, some house-bound patients told us practice staff would visit them at home when needed. However, others told us doctors did not visit patients who lived in a care home, and rather they interacted with care home staff once a week by video-call. The provider was aware of challenges that had influenced the engagement with patients and staff in the care home and told us about plans they had made to improve interactions.

There were systems in place to support patients who face communication barriers to access treatment.

The practice provided care and support for patients who do not speak English as their first language.

There were arrangements in place for people who need translation services, including access to telephone-based interpreter services.

A variety of members of staff spoke different languages and were also available to support discussions when needed.

Information in the practice was available in different languages, for example some patient information leaflets, posters and information on the television screen.

People who were or might be vulnerable could register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people, Travellers, and refugees.

Although we saw evidence some staff had completed training in Equality and Diversity, because the provider did not have oversight of the training completed by staff, it was unclear if all staff had completed this training.

There were baby changing facilities and ramped access suitable for those with wheelchairs, scooters or prams.

However, the practice no longer allowed patients to park at the practice, including disabled parking spaces.

We did not receive feedback from people about their experiences of end of life care.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients. For example, in recognition of the religious and cultural observances of some patients, GPs would respond quickly, on the same day, to certify a death so an immediate burial or cremation could take place in line with patients’ and families’ wishes.

Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made in line with relevant legislation and were appropriate.

Patients, their relatives and carers were involved in decisions about DNACPR.