Dr Salam J Farhan Also known as Partington Central 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

We assessed all quality statements in this key question. Our rating for this key question has improved from requires improvement to good. During this assessment we found that patients could access care and treatment in a timely way. There was an improved system to manage complaints in a way that demonstrated duty of candour and in accordance with regulatory requirements.

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 the most appropriate care and treatment for them. The provider made reasonable adjustments where necessary. 87% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment 86% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. These results were in line with local and national averages.

Staff and leaders gave us examples of people receiving the most appropriate care and treatment for them. This was evidenced through discussions with GPs and other clinical staff where they had made reasonable adjustments for patients. Staff told us they had all completed relevant training to enable them to conduct their roles in this regard.

Staff and leaders told us that this was a small practice where the provider had been the lead GP for generations of families. Patients were well known and their needs were well understood. New staff told us about holistic ways of managing patient care that covered social and economic information as well as health concerns. There was continuity in care and treatment because services were flexible. Staff told us they had undertaken Equality and Diversity training and the needs and preferences of people were considered when delivering care and treatment.

Partners had no specific feedback on this area.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The provider worked with services in a co-ordinated and responsive way. Wherever people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met people’s assessed needs from services that were coordinated and responsive.

People received information and advice that was accurate, up to date and provided in a way that they could understand. 88% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. 89% were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. These were slightly lower than the local and national averages of 91%.

Staff and leaders told us they ensured people’s individual needs were identified so they received information in an accessible way. The information was recorded, highlighted and shared with everyone. Staff we spoke to told us they had completed Information Governance training which included General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). They also told us that the practice had organised educational evenings to help people understand how to make appointments and order prescriptions online.

The provider had up to date policies around accessible information and information governance which had been improved since the previous inspection. There were processes to assist people who did not use English as their first language such as language line, interpreters and members of staff who could speak several languages local to the community.

People were encouraged and enabled to feedback about their care in ways that worked for them, and they knew how it was acted on. There was a small patient participation group (PPG) where patients from the practice could attend. This group was being developed to improve communication and to include the wider community about what services were available to them at the practice.

Learning from complaints and concerns had improved since the previous inspection and the practice saw concerns and feedback as an opportunity for improvement and learning. The lead GP was responsible for dealing with complaints about the practice and there was now a salaried GP for peer discussion and other GPs to share information about complaints and learning from them.

There was an up to date complaints policy and a spreadsheet to document and record formal complaints which we saw had been kept up to date for the last 12 months. There was evidence of acknowledgement, response, action and outcome. Complaints were discussed at every practice meeting with all staff.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed to in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights. 41% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey said they were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment. This was lower than the local and national average of 53%. We reviewed the appointments available for patients on the day of the site visit and saw that choices were available and were offered to patients.

The leaders told us about a business projection plan for 2024/2025 which aimed to improve access for patients. The reception area was being renovated and plans were in place for a new health hub where patients could weigh themselves and take blood pressure. Patients had been invited to an educational evening to help them understand how to use the practice website and how to make appointments and order prescriptions online. Staff had been trained in care navigation and since then more pre-bookable appointments were available.

The provider offered appointments of varying lengths to meet each patient’s needs. This could be up to 30 minutes for a complicated assessment if required. People could make an appointment by calling the practice, attending in person, or online. Appointments were face to face, telephone or as a home visit where clinically required, and patients made a choice of preference. Routine nurse and doctor appointments could be made in advance as well as urgent appointments which were available on the day or in advance. On the day of the site visit, we noted that GP appointments were still available. Medication reviews were also available by telephone with a pharmacist. People did not need to ring on the day to make an urgent appointment and if an appointment was free the following day that could be used. A remote telephone and online consultation policy was in place.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider and via the GP patient survey was positive about the experience of the care and treatment they received. 88% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly lower than the local and national averages of 92%.

The provider told us that they looked for ways to listen to information about people most likely to experience inequality and tailored the care and support in response. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted the service to support people’s needs. The practice was small and all staff were familiar with the needs of their population.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. All patients, including deaf patients, were able to access interpreters when required, including at first registration.

There was no specific feedback from people planning for the future.

The provider told us that people who wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wished. Staff said they made sure that external services were involved or updated when needed.

The provider had processes in place and supported people to plan ahead for major changes in their lives. We saw evidence staff acted without discrimination when supporting people and their families to make decisions. There was a local and practice specific policy in place to cover these eventualities.