Archived: Coquet Medical Group

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

We carried out an announced assessment of 7 quality statements under the key question Responsive and found: Leaders used people’s feedback and other evidence to improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for all people. The provider prioritised and allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. People, those who support them, and staff can easily access information and advice. This supports them in managing and understanding their care and treatment. There is partnership working to make sure that care and treatment meets the diverse needs of communities. People are encouraged to give feedback, which is acted on and used to deliver improvements. Although patient feedback around access had been below average, we saw action had been taken to address this and feedback had been improving as a result.

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.

People received care and support that was co-ordinated, and everyone worked well together and with the patient. We saw that people were supported to plan ahead. Data from the 2024 National GP patient surgery showed that of those people that responded to the survey, 81% said they had enough support in the last 12 months to help manage their LTCs. This was higher than local and national averages.

People received care and treatment that considers their diverse health and social care needs. The practice had a diverse workforce this helped staff to understand patient’s needs better and deliver more effective and responsive care. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were flexible and joined-up. Staff worked together and with external organisations to deliver responsive care and treatment in a way that met their assessed needs. Staff delivered and co-ordinated services while considering the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care. The practice had a stable workforce and rarely used locum GPs, this ensured better continuity of care.

Feedback from the Integrated Care Board was positive about this service.

Patients could access extended opening hours on an evening and weekend and had access to out of hours service. There were processes in place to ensure people in care homes received responsive care and treatment and that care home staff had access to effective communication channels. Leaders used patient feedback to help them monitor how responsive their service was and make further improvements as needed. Each GP had an allocation of appointments they could use to book follow-up appointments in if they felt this was needed to ensure continuity of care.

From a range of patient feedback we viewed, we saw that patient feedback was mostly very positive and patients felt well informed and that staff gave clear advice and explanations. For example, from the 2024 National GP patient survey, of those people that responded, 96% knew what the next step would be within 2 days of contacting their GP practice. This was higher than local and national averages.

All staff reported that they had access to information that would support patients/carers in managing their care and treatment and they would either print the information off in a format that met their needs or send it to patients using text message.

Translation and accessibility tools were available on the practice website and there was a translation tool available on the check-in screens in the practice.  We saw there was information about the practice on the notice boards in the ground and first floor waiting rooms, for example the complaints procedure, patient participation groups (PPG) information, health promotion, and support groups including information for carers. We saw that information about support groups was available on the practice website. The website had a copy of the practice leaflet and information about the practice values/mission statement. There was information for patients about privacy and how their information was used.

Patient feedback that CQC received was mostly very positive about care and treatment received. Of the 67 patients who contacted us as part of this assessment, 47 gave positive feedback. Data from the 2024 National GP patient surgery showed that of those people that responded to the survey, 95% were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was higher than local and national averages.

All staff we spoke with were able to share examples of complaints that the practice had received and learning that had occurred as a result. Staff saw patient feedback as an important part of improving services. Examples of recent action taken following patient feedback included installing a new phone system and updating the appointment triage system to ensure patient access was improved.

We reviewed the practice’s processes to receive and investigate complaints and manage information related to complaints. We reviewed 3 complaints in detail. We found people had different methods to provide feedback. This included through NHS and Healthwatch website, through the complaints process, through friends and family survey, the practice in-house survey and the national patient survey. Patients could also email the patient participation group (PPG) and there was a suggestions box. The practice monitored patient feedback from a variety of sources and shared this with staff. An annual report was produced that looked at trends, including if performance had improved compared to the previous year and what further actions were needed. The practice had effective processes in place to receive and investigate complaints. There had been 45 complaints received between September 2023 and August 2024. There were processes in place to share learning from complaints with staff and with the PPG.

This inspection was carried out as a result of negative patient feedback around access on the National GP Patient Survey. For example, only 13% of patients surveyed in 2024 said they found it easy to get through to the practice by phone. However, we saw from feedback that we received and that the practice had collected themselves following the National GP Patient Survey, that satisfaction with access was improving. The 2024 results were also an improvement on the previous year, for example with 52% of those who responded describing their experience of making an appointment as good, compared to 32% in 2023.

Staff we spoke with told us multiple changes had been made to the appointments system and to the ways in which patients could contact the practice, in response to the feedback they had received. Some of these changes had been made and some were ongoing. For example, the practice website had been updated to bring it in line with other Northumberland Primary Care (NPC) practices and to allow patients to contact the surgery online. The practice had also recently installed a new telephone system to allow for more calls to be taken, to reduce waiting times. Staff told us they felt these improvements were making it easier for them to offer more appointments to patients.

The practice had switched to an online triaging system which gave patients more options for contacting the practice. There was a dedicated team of call handlers plus a care navigation GP who sat together in one room handling all requests for appointments that came into the practice either via the phone, online or by text message. The GP was then able to either offer immediate advice or triage patients to the most appropriate appointments. There was the option to offer appointments with North Northumberland Enhanced Access when appointments were not available at the practice. The phone lines could also be redirected to other Northumberland Primary Care (NPC) practices when they were extremely busy. The practice was able to monitor demand on the phones and allocate staff accordingly. We checked the appointment system in real time on the day of the assessment. There were same day appointments available within a couple of hours at both practice sites. Three-day, 7-day, and 14-day appointments were blocked out to ensure they remained free for patients who needed them. We saw there were multiple non-urgent appointments available over the next 14 days. There were multiple nursing appointments available too.

Patients who gave us feedback told us they felt they had been treated fairly and with respect. Results on the National GP Patient Survey were broadly the same regardless of gender, race, or disability.

Staff we spoke with told us they treated everyone with dignity and respect and gave us examples of non-judgemental practice. They told us they kept registers to help to monitor those most at need of support, and that longer appointments and flexible appointment times were available for those who needed them. There was a lead member of staff for reasonable adjustments to ensure all patients who needed them had them in place.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet. This included collecting feedback about their registration service. The practice collected feedback from people in different ways to enable all patients the opportunity to give feedback. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services, whether from wider society, organisational processes and culture or from individuals. Staff acted on information about people's experiences and outcomes and allocated resources and opportunities to achieve equity. Leaders had regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. There was a reasonable adjustment questionnaire for patients to fill out, and this was followed up regularly to ensure the adjustments were working. A project was underway to measure the effectiveness of and patient satisfaction with the adjustments put in place.