The Nuffield 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

We carried out an announced assessment of one quality statement, equity of access, under the key question Responsive and found: The practice used patient feedback and other information available to actively seek to improve access and services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The practice monitored, prioritised and allocated resources as required to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. The responsive key question remains rated as good. No breaches of regulation were identified.

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.

The practice offered face to face, online and telephone appointments and home visits where appropriate. Patients could book appointments online, by telephone or by attending the practice and patients could book a routine appointment up to 12 weeks in advance. Information on how to access care out of hours was available on the telephone message system, online and at the practice. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients and staff had guidance available to support their decisions. We saw audits undertaken on telephone wait times supported leaders to regularly review demand and capacity regarding their appointment system. Audits demonstrated the average telephone queue time in February 2024 was 5 minutes 54 seconds. Leaders told us they worked collaboratively across their Primary Care Network (PCN) to improve access and patient care. For example, housebound patients could access support from the Primary Care Visiting Service, where the PCN shared visiting paramedics and patients could be referred to a social prescriber to help signpost patients to community support services.

Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the challenges to patient access and the needs of the local population and had developed services in response to those needs. For example, according to national data, the practice population had a higher proportion of older patients than the local and national averages. The practice told us they focused on offering named GPs to promote continuity of care, in particular to their older population group with co-morbidities, to ensure GPs had a clear understanding of the patient needs and to improve patient outcomes. We were told the reception team were trained in care navigation and were able to signpost patients to the most appropriate clinician or service. If a member of staff was concerned about a patient, this was flagged to the duty doctor who also provided clinical oversight and support to the reception team. Feedback from staff and leaders demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and asylum seekers. The practice provided opportunities and support for different groups of patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, staff told us they were alerted to patients needs such as vulnerabilities and communication needs.

The 2023 national GP Patient Survey data regarding access showed the practice results for all 4 indicators were in line with national averages. For example, the percentage of respondents who responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment was 51% and this was comparable to the national average of 54%. During the assessment, we received 9 responses via Give Feedback on Care through the CQC website. Of these, 8 were positive feedback and 1 was mixed. Patient feedback gathered by the practice was also positive. For example, in January and February 2024, 587 patients responded to the NHS Friends and Family Test and 93% responded they were likely or extremely likely to recommend the practice to their friends and family. The practice monitored and reviewed patient feedback and used this to make improvements to patient access and experience. The practice also had active engagement with the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and a representative from the PPG told us access to services was positive and adapted to meet the needs of the local population groups.

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

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.