Whittington Moor 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

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protects their rights. Leaders and staff proactively sought ways to address barriers to improve people’s experience, acted on information about people's experiences and outcomes and allocated resources and opportunities to achieve equity. 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.

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.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

All staff had completed training to support vulnerable patients including patients with autism or learning difficulties. Staff told us patients with a learning disability or autism had care plans in place to support them. Patients with a learning disability were offered appointments with the same member of staff for continuity. There were systems in place to support patients whose first language was not English, patients with a visual or hearing difficulty, carers, patients of no fixed abode and patients with a learning disability.

Results from the most recent national GP patient survey (GPPS) showed 88% describe their overall experience of this GP practice as good, compared to the local average of 72% and national average of 71%. The provider had reviewed the findings of the most recent National GP Patient Survey and changes had been made. For example, patients wanted to be involved more in their care planning. In response to this, patients were provided with a paper copy of their plan and a text message was sent to them informing them of this. We saw evidence that the provider had focused on the areas of the GPPS where they have performed lower than average to consider any changes and to assess any impact of changes made. For example, the practice audited the experience of patients who had visited them over a 6-week period with a focus on choice of preferred GP and appointment times offered. The practice collected and reviewed Friends and Family Test returns which were sent to patients after appointments. The practice reviewed these quarterly to see if there were any issues that they needed to address to improve or enhance patient experience. Minutes of the Patient Participation Group meeting held with the practice demonstrated a commitment to engage with patient representatives and seek their views in shaping services to ensure patients views are heard.

We found a number of policies were in place to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. For example, the Accessible information policy covered the five key requirements of the standard relating to making information accessible for all including patients and carers. The Carer’s policy detailed processes for following up on new patients and existing patients who are carers. The carers champion contacted this group of patients to ensure their needs were identified and they were appropriately coded for identification on the clinical system. The DNACPR policy covered the decision-making process including the need to assess mental capacity, young people under 18 years old, people with a learning disability/autism, record keeping, and interaction with other services.

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.