Practice Plus Group - NHS 111 London

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We found that the service was providing caring services because the service treated patients with kindness and dignity. Individual needs were met and patients’ choices were considered. The service ensured the wellbeing of staff.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service undertook patient surveys to review the quality of care provided. The most recent survey found that 89% of patients considered that they had been treated with respect by staff at the service.

Staff understood patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They displayed an understanding and non-judgmental attitude to all patients. The service gave patients timely support and information. Call handlers gave people who phoned into the service clear information. There were arrangements and systems in place to support staff to respond to people with specific health care needs such as end of life care and those who had mental health needs including training, awareness seminars and bulletins for specific staff groups.

During the inspection we observed staff as they made calls. Both clinical and non-clinical staff spoke with patients with care, dignity and patience.

The service undertook patient surveys to review the quality of care provided. Although the service did not question patients directly about how staff treated them as individuals the majority of patients were satisfied with the service. As the service is telephony-based, CQC did not speak to any patients on the days of the inspection.

Staff and leaders who we spoke to were aware of the need to treat people as individuals. Staff told us that the would always try to speak to patients in a way that they could understand.

Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. For patients with a learning disability or social care needs, the service involved their family, carers or social workers as appropriate. The service also also utilised type/text talk for patients with hearing difficulties.

The service undertook patient surveys to review the quality of care provided. The most recent survey found that 85% of patients considered that the staff that they had spoken to had listened to what they had say and accommodated their choices.

Staff and leaders reported that in general terms, patients were directed to the service indicated by their directory of service. However, they told us that this could be amended at the patient’s request to their preferred service.

The service had processes in place in order that patient’s choices could be accommodated.

The service undertook patient surveys to review the quality of care provided. Although the survey did not ask patients directly about responding to immediate needs, the majority of patients were satisfied with the service. As the service is telephony-based, CQC did not speak to any patients on the days of the inspection.

Staff at the service told us that they would be guided by the Pathways clinical management system when choosing which service to refer patients to, with clinical input as required. They told us that the service had systems to prioritise those patients who had the most immediate needs.

Leaders at the service told us that they had put in place a number of initiatives to support staff at the service. The service had an employee assistance programme to advise on issues such as stress and anxiety, bereavement and family issues. They had also implemented a wellbeing newsletter which detailed support that was available to employees either through the provider’s own services, or third party providers. The service had put in place a multi-faith prayer and reflection room, and a noticeboard which detailed services available to staff. Leaders also discussed engagement at the service, and detailed a number of initiatives whereby feedback was sought from staff of all levels of experience to ensure that onboarding and ongoing support could be provided. They had also implemented a staff engagement forum where issues affecting staff could be formally discussed, and where necessary escalated to senior managers. Staff at the service told us that they felt very supported by the service, and that they felt that their views were listened to and actioned. They also told us that they felt that their personal development was a priority at the organisation, and that training for their role was helpful and supportive.

There were processes for providing all staff with the development they need. This included appraisal and career development conversations. All staff received regular annual appraisals in the last year. Staff were supported to meet the requirements of professional revalidation where necessary. Staff were considered valued members of the team. They were given protected time for professional development and evaluation of their work. There was a strong emphasis on the safety and well-being of all staff. Staff were supported when they were involved in a traumatic incident, complaint or investigation. The service actively promoted equality and diversity. It identified and addressed the causes of any workforce inequality. Staff had received equality and diversity training. Staff felt they were treated equally. There were positive relationships between staff and teams.