Manor Park 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

During our assessment of this key question, the practice have made improvements following patient feedback. For example, upgrading their telephone system to ensure a reduced queue time. Complaint processes were also followed.

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.

Feedback from the GP patient survey demonstrated that 90% of the patients surveyed felt their needs were met during their latest GP appointment. In addition, 78% of patients surveyed said they felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last GP appointment. These results were in line with national averages. During this assessment, we spoke with a member of the patient participation group, where they spoke highly of the practice, recommending their services as they felt the care and treatment received is tailored towards them as an individual.

Staff told us they were aware and listened to the diversity of the practice population and were responsive to the patient’s individual cultural, social and religious beliefs. The practice made reasonable adjustments and complied to the accessible information standard. Staff also told us vulnerable patients had alerts on their record so all staff are aware of their specific needs.

Staff recognised that continuity of care was essential for patients’ well-being and satisfaction. Staff told us they employed 7 salaried GPs to work across both sites to provide continuity of care. This also encouraged better attendance at clinical meetings, reinforcing adherence to clinical protocols and pathways, ensuring consistent messages were given to patients. Overall, the healthcare professionals were able to foster stronger patient relationships, leading to better health outcomes.

Partners were positive about the practice. They said leaders and staff were responsive in supporting vulnerable patients and ensuring care and treatment was provided in a timely and person-centred way. Staff understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local community and patient population. They were able to describe processes to ensure patients received co-ordinated care, for example through multidisciplinary working teams when needed. Good practice was shared through regular meetings and the practice offered patients continuity booking where they could select to see the same GP for follow up appointments.

The practice had a referral policy in place to facilitate patient care being supportive of patient choice and continuity. 2 week wait referral records were seen during the records review. The referrals reviewed had been made promptly and in accordance with NICE suspected cancer guidance. Referral templates were used and contained appropriate information. The practice also had a home visit policy, evidencing a weekly ward round at Bradley Hall Care Home to ensure patients are reviewed in a timely manner, preventing hospital admissions. The practice had a social prescriber who supported people about services available locally and ensured a smooth process.

The GP patient survey feedback found that 92% of patients surveyed felt the healthcare professionals had all of the information needed about them to facilitate their appointment.

Staff provided us with evidence to demonstrate the efforts made by the practice to ensure patients could access and understand information. Patients who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. For example, the practice had a touch screen sign in pad located in reception, available in multiple languages. British sign language and interpreters were available upon request. The practice website also provided useful health information for patients and included accessible online tools such as increased font size. Staff told us they had employed staff that could speak multiple languages to enable engagement with the local community.

Staff followed policies and procedures to ensure patients had information that was accessible and tailored towards their individual needs. Communication and accessibility needs were highlighted in patient records, so all staff were aware how to accommodate their needs. For example, interpretation and translation services were available for people who don’t speak English as their first language. These needs were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Notice boards in the patient areas were well maintained and provided an array of appropriate information for patients and carers. Opening times were displayed on the practice’s website and information how to complain was displayed in the clinic. Systems ensured sensitive and confidential information about patients met data protection legislation requirements. The practice had an ‘access to medical records policy’ outlining how patients can access their health and care records and decide which personal information could be shared with other people, including their family or care staff. Data protection information could also be found on their website.

Feedback from the GP patient survey demonstrated that 72% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them. In addition, the practice conducted their own survey with 427 responses, whereby 385 patients agreed that staff were either good or very good at listening to them. Some patients also left comments in the ‘compliments book’ stating “Very kind, listening to me and communicating in my own language.”

Staff told us they understood the complaints process and knew how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they may have.

The practice had a complaints policy that was easily accessible within the practice and instructions how to access the policy could also be found on their website. Complaints could be made verbally or written. All complaints and concerns were addressed during staff meetings. We found robust processes in place to monitor complaints and incidents reporting. The documentation we reviewed was informative and all staff had access to meeting minutes, evidencing shared learning.

Data from the GP patient survey told us that 33% of the patients surveyed experienced difficulty getting through to the practice by telephone which is lower than the national average result of 50%. The practice addressed this information and invested in a new phone system to accommodate patient’s feedback. The data analysis following the new phone system shows significant improvement including reduced queue time. Employment of more staff has also enabled more outgoing calls, inviting patients for reviews and informing patients of results at a faster rate than in previous years. Results from the practice’s internal survey showed 91% of patients surveyed were satisfied with being able to contact the practice by telephone.

Staff told us that they had listened to patient feedback with regard to access. After upgrading the phone system, they provided data to show their call answering times had improved. Staff also told us that patients were also able to book appointments at the desk in reception or use the online appointment booking system.

The practice was open from Monday to Friday 8am – 6:30pm. Each day the on-call GP is available during these hours to see patients and contact patients about their results or medical reviews. Telephone and face to face appointments are also offered. Extended access on weekends is provided at Manor Park Medical Practice and at another practice within the PCN to increase accessibility. Leicester City Healthcare Hubs are also available for additional appointments, if patients are not able to attend a clinic at Manor Park.

Patients told us they felt any cases of discrimination or inequality would be listened to and taken seriously.

Leaders and staff were aware to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using the services. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, the sign in screen was accessible in multiple languages, alerts were put on patient notes to identify patients with mobility problems who need to be seen in a downstairs consulting room. Some staff told us they had done the Oliver McGowan training and were aware that patients with autism may be sensitive to bright lights so may need lights switched off during consultations. Staff also told us they were able to speak different languages and could access the telephone translation service for patients whose first language is not English. Priority appointments were also offered to vulnerable patients.

The practice provided reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, removing barriers or delays and protected people’s rights. Information was available in multiple languages. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service. The practice was passionate to ensure all patients have the same opportunity and have recently employed a social prescriber with a wealth of knowledge with lots of connections in the community. Referrals are made to the social prescriber where a person centered approach is adopted ensuring an engaging environment and having someone to talk too. The practice also hired a mobile van with a clinical room and offered a Saturday walk-in service to administer pneumococcal vaccines to vulnerable patients. Over 100 vaccines were administered by the healthcare assistant and GP.

The evidence we reviewed showed that 78% of patients surveyed in the GP patient survey were to some extent or definitely involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff told us palliative care multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings were held every month to discuss patients on the palliative care register, receiving end of life care. These were attended by the palliative care nurse and local area co-ordinator. The practice also had links with the local paediatric palliative care service.

The practice had systems in place to support patients at the end of their life. There was also a bereavement process followed when notified of a patient’s death to ensure the appropriate steps were taken. The practice conducted an after-death audit to check if patients had passed away in their preferred place, to check that the death certificate has been issued on time and to check that a bereavement letter/offer of support has been given to bereaved families. GPs ensured that death certificates were issued promptly outside surgery hours for patients whose religion requires that the burial takes place within 48 hours of death.