Brewood 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

The rating for providing responsive services remains good. The provider and the PPG had put an action plan in place in response to patient feedback. This was being monitored to ensure people could access services in a timely manner. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people. The practice identified and allocated resources as required to improve inequalities and support equity of access.

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.

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 practice PPG told us they felt their views were listened to and valued. However, we received mixed feedback in relation to people’s experience of how they felt listened to and involved in their care and treatment. CQC received information of concern from a number of patients who advised they had been in receipt of complaints. The CQC signposted these patients to the appropriate complaints process. The National GP Patient Survey 2023 for the practice showed 92% were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the National average of 90% and local Integrated Care System averages of, 93%. The survey also found that 97% of respondents had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. This was slightly higher than the National average of 90% and local Integrated Care System averages of 94%.

The practice leaders told us they had developed an improvement plan following the review of the findings from the National GP Survey results and their in-house patient survey in respect of access to services. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of how they would support a patient to raise a complaint. Staff and leaders told us complaints and significant events were used for quality improvement by the practice team.

The practice held a complaints policy, which they shared with us and read as a draft version. This was discussed with leaders during our visit, and they agreed to action. We found the complaint records we sampled did not detail the escalation process should a patient not be happy with the outcome of their complaint.

We reviewed the National GP Patient survey 2023 results for the practice. There were areas for improvement which the practice had acknowledged in their action and improvement plan. This plan incorporated actions following their in-house survey results. Actions included improvements in the ease of getting through to the practice by phone and appointment availability. An action plan derived from the PPG’s own survey in 2023 was also shared with the practice for implementation. For example, a call back system had been added to improve patient experience.

Staff and leaders told us an action plan had been developed to improve patient access experience. Following negative patient feedback received about access, the practice had reviewed their performance and identified improvements with a plan of action.

The practice had actions plans in place to improve equity and access to patients. For example, a plan was in place to change the appointment times to ensure they were more readily available for patients. The provider had Accessible Information Standard Policy in place. There were processes and we saw examples of the practice working with other healthcare professionals, including out of hours

The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding equity in experience and outcomes.

The practice told us they worked closely with local stakeholders and reviewed local health inequalities. They reported they worked with external partners to implement measures to reduce health inequality within the local population. Discussions held with leaders and staff demonstrated they had a clear understanding of discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using the services.

The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected people’s rights. The practice had systems in place to obtain and review patient feedback. People had access to information on support for carers and bereaved patients.

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.